On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:12:29AM +0200, Burkhard Plaum wrote:
hope this gets through, since I'm not subscribed.
Worked fine (not sure if strings were pulled behind the curtain)
Am 14.08.2010 23:04, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:Hi Burkhard (cc public Debian multimedia team mailinglist),I suggest you adjust the headers of [regression tests] for next release of your project.Added my standard copyright header to tests/*.c in CVS.
More troublesome, but maybe also more difficult to solve, I discovered that some source files are licensed as 4-clause BSD which is incompatible with GPLv2.These are the files I found containing 4-clause BSD licensing: lib/os.c (at line 93) include/bgav_sem.h lib/base64.cAs IOhannes already mentioned, all stuff except lib/base64.c are fallbacks for non-Posix systems (mainly windows).
Ok.I am unsure on concensus in Debian regarding licensing of *fractions* of files.
As I understand it, in principle we are safe if we can ensure that 4-clause BSD only affects code parts that are not compiled into any of the binary code that we redistribute.
Ideal for us (and for other distributors, I guess) would be if those 4-clause BSD parts was placed in separate files by you upstream. That way we could strip them completely from our redistributed source (as we do already with lib/libw32dll and lib/GSM610). If we should play safe with current source, it is technically possible for us to patch away problematic file parts during source tarball repackaging, but that is ugly, as that blurs what is upstream work and what we hacked on.
We'll try to get GPLed base64 routines.
Good. Thanks for all your help with this. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list email@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers