Hi all, On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Mike Gabriel <mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de> wrote: > Hi Fathi, > > > On Mi 30 Mai 2012 06:06:07 CEST Fathi Boudra wrote: > >> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Guido Vollbeding <gu...@jpegclub.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hello Mathieu >>> >>> Thank you for question. >>> libjpeg is reference code, not faulty patchwork. >>> Everything is said in the README: >>> >>> There are currently distributions in circulation containing the name >>> "libjpeg" which claim to be a "derivative" or "fork" of the original >>> libjpeg, but don't have the features and are incompatible with formats >>> supported by actual IJG libjpeg distributions. Furthermore, they >>> violate the license conditions as described under LEGAL ISSUES above. >>> We have no sympathy for the release of misleading and illegal >>> distributions derived from obsolete code bases. >>> Don't use an obsolete code base! >>> >>> I mean, the original README in libjpeg, not that in the patchwork you >>> are talking about, which is one of the license violations. >>> >>> It seems that Bill Allombert is still one of the few sane people out >>> there, many others have apparently gone mad. >>> I don't care for the ignorant people. >>> >>> You may of course make a "turbo" version, I have nothing against it, >>> but NOT in the way mentioned. Take libjpeg with its current features >>> and make it "turbo" - that would be wonderful! >> >> >> For reference: http://www.libjpeg-turbo.org/About/FUD >> As we can see, "the other camp" doesn't agree. >> I would like to avoid political/legal/off-topic discussions that >> doesn't belong to this bug report or LJT ITP. Thanks. > > > I fully agree with Fathi, no political discussion via an Debian ITP in BTS.
Well the issues were about: 1. legal issues 2. ABI compatibility For (1), I read the original copyright 3 times [1], but I failed to see where exactly the issue is. The most probable issue is : [...] (1) If any part of the source code for this software is distributed, then this README file must be included, with this copyright and no-warranty notice unaltered; and any additions, deletions, or changes to the original files must be clearly indicated in accompanying documentation. [...] However looking at [2] I can check that the original README is still there. The modifications from the original libjpeg seems to be indicated quite clearly in section "libjpeg v7 and v8 Features", of [3]. So I am not clear what the issue really is... Maybe it depends on what you call "[...] be clearly indicated [...]" Guido, could you precisely outline what you call "[...] they violate the license conditions [...]". As for (2), I explained what the differences are at: http://bugs.debian.org/612341#136 I guess I am being picky here, but if a lib claims to have a SONAME of libjpeg8, then it should *actually* implements all of libjpeg8 ABI. dpkg-divert should really be clear about that if libjpeg-turbo ever tries to replace libjpeg[8|9]. 2cts [1] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/libj/libjpeg8/current/copyright [2] http://sourceforge.net/projects/libjpeg-turbo/files/1.2.0/libjpeg-turbo-1.2.0.tar.gz [3] http://libjpeg-turbo.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/libjpeg-turbo/trunk/README-turbo.txt -- Mathieu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
