Any objections if I help maintain debian packages? - Eric
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Nicolas Boullis <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:23:11AM +0200, Robert Kausch wrote: >> >> >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. >> >> Dug a bit deeper; the problem at that time was mixing GPL 3 or later >> with GPL 2 only. libcdio included cdparanoia 9.8 code which was >> released as GPL 2 only, so when libcdio changed to GPL 3 or later, >> there was a problem. The licenses are not compatible, so the split >> was necessary at that point. >> >> Later, libcdio-paranoia upgraded to cdparanoia 10.0 and then 10.2 >> which changed the license to LGPL 2.1 only for the library and GPL 2 >> or later for the tool. Both allow distributing derivative works >> under the GPL 3 or later, so there's no problem anymore. > > That sounds like very good news! > To be honnest, I am somewhat bored by incompatibilities between free > software licences, so I am happy to read that things are getting simple > for libcdio-paranoia (although I think things would be simpler with > GPL2+ than with GPL3+). > > On the other hand, some bad news for those who care: I missed the > deadline for library transitions for Debian Jessie. Hence, Debian Jessie > will be shipped with libcdio 0.83. Sorry for that. > > > Cheers, > > -- > Nicolas >
