On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Francesco Poli <invernom...@paranoici.org> wrote: > [Thanks for your fast reply, and sorry for my late reply...] > > > On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:44:11 +0100 Reinhard Tartler wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Francesco Poli >> <invernom...@paranoici.org> wrote: >> > On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:55:12 +0100 Reinhard Tartler wrote: >> > >> > [...] >> >> Oh I'm sorry, I mixed that up. There is no clear answer on that >> >> because it depends. Most of the files are LGPL, but some hand-written >> >> assembler optimizations are GPL-2+. The configure script offers an >> >> --enable-gpl switch that includes those GPL-2+ sources. We do enable >> >> this switch for all packages we produce in Debian. >> >> >> >> In theory, we could probably also provide an LGPL build of libavcodec. >> >> Fortunately, nobody has requested that so far. >> > >> > Wait, are you saying that those few GPL-licensed files: >> > >> > [...] >> > | Files: libavdevice/x11grab.c >> > | libavfilter/yadif.h >> > | libavfilter/vf_blackframe.c >> > | libavfilter/vf_boxblur.c >> > | libavfilter/vf_cropdetect.c >> > | libavfilter/vf_delogo.c >> > | libavfilter/vf_hqdn3d.c >> > | libavfilter/vf_yadif.c >> > | libavfilter/x86/yadif.c >> > | libavfilter/x86/yadif_template.c >> > [...] >> > | License: GPL-2+~Libav >> > [...] >> > >> > are compiled into, or linked with, each shared object (*.so) shipped in >> > all Debian binary packages built from the libav source package? >> >> yes. >> >> > In other words, are you saying that all binary packages built from >> > the libav Debian source package are effectively under GPL-2+ >> > (except for libavcodec-extra-* and libav-dbg, which are effectively >> > under GPL-3+)? >> >> yes. > > Ouch! > This is not clear at all, by reading the debian/copyright file and/or > by looking at the binary package long descriptions!
Well, strictly speaking, I believe that at least libavutil might still end up as LGPL effectively. But definitively not libavcodec, which is what matters in all practical cases, including netgen. > > Without intimate knowledge of the libav package build process, I just > thought that those GPL-licensed files only ended up into the binary > packages named after the directories where they live... > Without digging into all the dependencies, I hadn't noticed all the > cross linking among the binary packages built from libav... > > In other words, I thought that only libavdevice and libavfilter were > under GPL-2+ and all the other libraries were separated enough to be > under LGPL-2.1+ ! Sorry, that's wrong, it's GPL. I thought that the old debian/copyright http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-multimedia/libav.git;a=blob;f=debian/copyright;h=9ce50341783655e90ddd3f340cc3fa324c6d4386;hb=HEAD was pretty clear on that. Also, this is really something upstream should be concerned about. The upstream homepage points out this situation *very* prominently: http://libav.org/ (see the 2nd light-green box at the top) > Now I even notice that a number of binary packages built from libav > depend on libavcodec-extra-54, and are therefore effectively under > GPL-3+ ! > > I think that this should be explicitly and clearly documented in the > comment at the beginning of the debian/copyright file and, probably, in > the binary package long descriptions, as well. Well, maybe you can suggest new changes to the new debian/copyright file? I'm really unsure how to express the situation less ambigously. Especially as Jonas (and others) keep telling me that debian/copyright is only about the source package. I'm not a big fan of adding licence terms to the binary package description. >> >> > Isn't there any binary package effectively under LGPL-2.1+? >> >> Exactly, we currently do not produce any LGPL'ed binary packages in >> Debian. In fact, we never did. Technically we could, but that would >> require significant additional complexity that I would prefer to avoid >> unless absolutely necessary. > > I understand that the additional complexity is not welcome, but I > expect that a good number of people would have probably already > requested these LGPL-licensed binary packages, if the current situation > were more apparent. > > Make no mistake, I am perfectly fine with a GPL-licensed library. > But: > > A) I am definitely less fine with a GPL-2-incompatible library > (as you know, GPL-3+ is not compatible with GPL-2) that's why the GPL-3+ stuff is in -extra. The non-extra variants stay with GPL-2. BTW: We even used to have (and in fact, we still have in ubuntu) an extra source package libav-extra exactly for this purpose. > B) it looks like a bit specious, when the library is under the GPL, > just because of a few files Maybe it would be clearer if we didn't talk about LGPL at all? But that would be a false statement. These "few" files do contain some important optimization and functionality. We really do not want to miss them in high-profile applications sich as vlc or mplayer. > Hence, whenever the GPL-licensed files may be excluded and the linking > with other GPL-licensed libraries may be avoided, it looks like a good > idea to also provide an LGPL-licensed (reduced functionality) variant of > the library. > > Sometimes you have a program under LGPL-2.1+ which links with libav* and > with a DFSG-free, but GPL-incompatible, library. > While you are trying hard to persuade the copyright holders of the > latter library to re-license under GPL-compatible terms, it would be > useful to link the program with the LGPL-licensed (reduced > functionality) variant of libav* packages, if at all possible... > > Please note that this is _not_ a theoretical example: see bug #618968. Okay, I thought that this might happen at some point, but I did not actively look for such cases (sorry, I really have better things to do). I guess that this bug is pretty serious, and I would agree that this would make netgen unsuitable for release. Fixing this on the libav package side will not be easy. I'll elaborate when I see the corresponding wishlist bug on that. > >> >> > Please clarify, since this may heavily affect the resolution of >> > licensing issues for other packages! >> >> I imagine. I hope this mail clarifies the situation! > > It does clarify, but I think the clarification should be visible to all > the interested users, not just those who happen to read this bug log. > > I am therefore going to file a bug report suggesting you to clearly > document this situation. > Excellent, thanks! -- regards, Reinhard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
