> I updated the libcdio-paranoia license to GPLv3 to match libcdio. I am not sure we can do this.
GPLv2 I think means GPLv2 and *only* GPLv2. LGPL of Paranoia 10.2 allows LGPL 2.1 or later but I don't think GPL. I mention this because this is why libcdio-paranoia and libcdio were split in the first place: we couldn't mix GPL 3 or later with GPL 2 only or LGPL. I am sorry for the confusion and apologize that I wasn't clear about the history of this before. Although I don't care to spend time thinking much about this, there are lots of other people inside and outside the project that do. On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Robert Kausch <[email protected]> wrote: > I updated the libcdio-paranoia license to GPLv3 to match libcdio. Also > updated two files in the libcdio tree that were still GPLv2. > > @Nicolas: Please have a look at the sources at https://github.com/rocky/ > libcdio-paranoia. Everything should be consistent now. > > Am 25.09.2014 um 15:09 schrieb Rocky Bernstein: > > Ok. Would you and Nicolas make the changes as appropriate? I'll hold off >> on >> a release after you both go over this. Thanks. >> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Robert Kausch <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Had a look at libcdio again and realized it's GPL only. >>> >>> In that case, I think we should go the other way and make >>> libcdio-paranoia >>> GPL only as well. It cannot be used without libcdio anyway so anything >>> using it would have to be GPL anyway. The LGPL option for >>> libcdio-paranoia >>> does not really make sense in that case. >>> >>> Robert >>> >>> Am 25.09.2014 um 14:27 schrieb Robert Kausch: >>> >>> Hi Rocky, >>> >>>> I had a look at the licenses of cdparanoia 10.2 and cdio-paranoia source >>>> files. >>>> >>>> In cdparanoia, the only files that carry a GPL license are cachetest.c >>>> and main.c (which would be cd-paranoia.c in cdio-paranoia). Everything >>>> else, including the whole library, is LGPL licensed. >>>> >>>> In cdio-paranoia about half the files are GPL, the other half LGPL. I >>>> think this is because the license of cdparanoia used to be the GPL until >>>> svn revision 14871. In revision 14872, they changed the license to LGPL, >>>> but that switch was never made in cdio-paranoia. >>>> >>>> As cdio-paranoia is now based on the latest cdparanoia release which, >>>> except for the two files mentioned above, is LGPL licensed, we could >>>> change >>>> the license to LGPL as well. Only the cd-paranoia tool would still have >>>> to >>>> be GPL licensed. >>>> >>>> Tell me what you think. >>>> >>>> Robert >>>> >>>> Am 15.09.2014 um 13:43 schrieb Rocky Bernstein: >>>> >>>> My intent was to make this identical to >>>>> http://downloads.xiph.org/releases/cdparanoia/ >>>>> cdparanoia-III-10.2.src.tgz >>>>> from https://www.xiph.org/paranoia/down.html >>>>> >>>>> I may have botched things though. If there are discrepancies, I'd >>>>> appreciate it if you or others would fix and make a pull request off of >>>>> the >>>>> git repository https://github.com/rocky/libcdio-paranoia >>>>> >>>>> I see that doc/FAQ.txt isn't in the source mentioned above. So maybe we >>>>> remove that file? >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 5:56 AM, Nicolas Boullis <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Rocky, >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 05:17:26AM -0400, Rocky Bernstein wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Lastly, the doc/FAQ.txt file has a copyright notice, with the "All >>>>>>> rights reserved." sentence. Isn't it non-free? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry for bothering you, but do you have an opinion on this one? >>>>>> I cannot start the Debian transition to libcdio 0.92 (or the upcoming >>>>>> 0.93) without packages for libcdio-paranoia, and I cannot ship a >>>>>> non-free documentation within Debian main. >>>>>> Do you have a reason to think this file is free? Or should I use a >>>>>> stripped-down tarball? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Nicolas >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> > >
