On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:27:44 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Francesco Poli (2013-01-09 22:07:30) [...] > > Moreover, the comment states that Apache-2.0 is incompatible with > > LGPL: I think this is incorrect and misleading. > > Ah, yes - I agree there is a typo in the comment: s/LGPL/GPL-2/
Good, this is one of the most misleading parts of the comment. > > > > > So even if you cannot find a single GPL-3+ licensed piece anywhere > > > in this project, the very purpose of libavcodec-extra-* (as compared > > > to libavcodec-*) is to link against GPL-licensed parts. > > > > This is the part that's not clear. > > Where is this stated? > > As I wrote earlier as well: In the long description of that binary > package. I read: | Because this package links against libraries that are licensed under | Apache License 2.0, the resulting binaries are distributed under the | GPL version 3 or later. If I am not missing anything else, this seems to be very similar to the comment we are talking about. It does _not_ point out that the package also links with libraries under GPL-2+. So, once again: if one is not aware of the GPL-2+ libraries (maybe because he/she has not reviewed the debian/copyright files of _all_ the dependencies!), he/she may look at the debian/copyright file of the package and see that the corresponding source files are under LGPL-2.1+. At that point, it would _not_ be clear how linking with libraries under Apache-2.0 causes the binary package to be effectively under GPL-3+. I really think that the libraries under GPL-2+ should be mentioned, or otherwise very few people will understand what's going on... > > > > The comment does clarifies this subtlety. > > Apparently that comment confuses more than it helps. I suspect that is > because that comment relates to licensing of _binary_ package which is > not really the purpose of debian/copyright file. I think it is confusing because it does not mention that the binary package also links with libraries under GPL-2+. > > > > And I cannot see it documented in the binary package description, > > either: http://packages.debian.org/experimental/libavcodec-extra-54 > > Uhm, look for the keywords Apache and GPL on that page. As I said, I cannot see where the long description points out that the binary package also links with libraries under GPL-2+. > > > > Unless I start digging into the debian/copyright files of all the > > dependencies, and find out that > > > > * libx264-123 is under GPL-2+ > > * libxvidcore4 is also under GPL-2+ > > * a small part of libmp3lame0 is under GPL-1+ > > > > Is this (together with the linking with Apache-2.0 libraries) the > > reason why the _binary_ package libavcodec-extra-* is effectively under > > GPL-3+, rather than "GPL-3+ or LGPL-2.1+ (excluding GPL-2)" ? > > Yes. Perfect! As I said, I think that this should be explicitly documented. > > > > If this is the case, then I think the comment should be clarified (and > > also the binary package description). > > Instead of trying to improve it, I suggest we *remove* that comment! I disagree: it is a useful warning for people who look at the debian/copyright file in order to determine the license compatibility status of the package. It basically says: "watch out! source is mostly LGPL-2.1+, but one binary package is effectively GPL-3+" It just should be clearer when it explains the reasons why! > > > > > > If this is really the case, then, although it's true that > > > > Apache-2.0 is not compatible with GPL-2, I don't think it's > > > > accurate to say that Apache-2.0 is not compatible with LGPL... > > > > > > Correct. One need to check the long description and > > > build-dependencies of libavcodec-extra-* to get an epiphany here. > > > > If one has to dig into all the dependencies anyway, then the comment > > does not seem to be too useful... > > What is wrong with "check the long description"? The long description is not really clearer. As I said, it does not mention the GPL-2+ libraries, either. [...] > > > > Anyway, let's see whether you think that the following re-formulation > > is accurate: > > > > | Comment: > > | Because the libavcodec-extra-* package links against libraries > > | licensed under GPL-2+ and (since libavcodec-extra-54) against libraries > > | under Apache-2.0 (compatible with GPL-3, but not with GPL-2), effective > > | license of that package and libav-dbg is GPL-3+ (rather than LGPL-2.1+). > > Your rewrite introduce new confusions. I would prefer we drop the > comment instead. Why?!? I think that my rewrite explains the actual reasons why the binary package is effectively under GPL-3+ (rather than LGPL-2.1+). > > > > A similar clarification may be applied to the description of the > > libavcodec-extra-* binary package. > > I fail to see what is wrong with current wording in long description of > libavcodec-extra-* binary package. See above: it fails to mention the GPL-2+ libraries. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpY10u36pD0i.pgp
Description: PGP signature
