Loic Minier wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2006, Anon Sricharoenchai wrote: > > If there's one upstream that extract and modify dll files from Windows Media > > Player and relicense those dll to some freeware license, then this upstream > > software > > can be packaged into Debian/non-free? Although it is apparently that > > Microsoft > > doesn't give any privilege for them to relicense? > > I think you want the obvious answer: no. And in this case, we would > likely question: "where do the DLL come from" (where's the code); but > you're taking a not too good example since: 1) it involves non-free 2) > it involves binary only code. In libmms, we're talking about source > code which has a public history, and we're shipping it in main.
So I could give another example. If the new project copy code from Qt and the project itself is licensed under LGPL. While it is obviously that some parts of code is from Qt, and no any approval from trolltech to be relicensed, Debian will still ship it under LGPL? > > > If Debian redistribute this package in freeware license, Debian will risk to > > get sued by Microsoft? > > Yes. Debian will also risk to get sued by majormms author or by trolltech? Majormms or trolltech may claim that they loss revenue, if someone got LGPL privilege to link the library in their proprietary/close-source application, while the library still contain GPL code from majormms/trolltech that do not allow anyone to link the code in close source program. > > > Or Debian can claim that, hey, it's not our responsibility, we got the valid > > license from the upstream author, if you (Microsoft) get loss, you should > > sue > > the upstream author to get compensate for all of the loss resulted by such > > relicensing? > > We can always argue that we did a mistake, and try our best to repair > it. It sounds like that Debian will keep the package in non-free as long as there's no any action from Microsoft? Even that the upstream author obviously said that those binary is from Windows Media Player, Debian will still distribute it under non-free, until it has some claim from Microsoft? > > First, I won't relicense any application that is currently LGPL as GPL > in Debian only following the claim of someone that wants me to do so. > I think we should follow the upstream license whenever possible. > Beside, some stacks (such as GStreamer) benefit from the fact that this > is LGPL and *not* GPL. > > So, no, I don't intend to just relicense it as GPL if this is not > required. Now, I agree with Don Armstrong, that debian can distribute this library under LGPL, but with some exception note that obviously say that some parts of code from majormms is still GPL. GStreamer can still be LGPL as long as it hasn't been compiled with mms support enabled. And GStreamer's debian/copyright should also clearly state that most parts of code is licensed under LGPL except some parts of mms support that is GPL. (This mean that if someone want to link GStreamer with close-source application, they must disable mms support in GStreamer) > My understanding is that the submitter claims that this relicensing is > incomplete and/or erroneous, but doesn't provide any further > information than references to messages before the relicensing > happened. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xine-devel&m=107261185004445&w=2 \begin{quote} > > you might need to ask "Major MMS" too ;-) > > Heh, is there any way to contact him? He seems to be some sort of > nameless hero, and that may complicate matters. \end{quote} This obviously show that they haven't even contacted the majormms author. And according to, http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xine-devel&m=110376804906666&w=2 we can also assume that only the codes from xine, and the new codes added by libmms, is relicensed. They haven't said anything about relicensing majormms codes, then we can assume that majormms codes haven't yet been relicensed. > > Even if relicensing the Debian package would have some consequences, I > am open to this solution *if* this has some factual and recent ground. > I currently didn't see any useful new piece of information, and would > like to get convinced that the licensing is required (since I had > already convinced myself that the LGPL was fine when I prepared the > package in the first place). It won't be fine if someone use this library in proprietary (or any GPL-incompatible), and if this is not what majormms author want, he may come out to claim his right, and Debian (including libmms) may be sued. Thanks for your attention, Anon. > > Perhaps the best way to achieve this is for the OP to clarify the > conditions of the relicensing with upstream. Before anyone suggest I > should be the one doing this, please recall that I already did it when > uploading to Debian, and there's no new piece of information in the > report. __________________________________________________ คุณใช้ Yahoo! รึเปล่า คุณเบื่อหน่ายอีเมลขยะใช่ไหม Yahoo! เมล มีการป้องกันอีเมลขยะที่ดีที่สุด http://th.mail.yahoo.com
