On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 00:23 -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 14:20, IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoel...@iem.at> wrote:
> > On 2010-11-23 13:17, Alessio Treglia wrote:
> >> Hi Burkhard,
> >> We've imported the sources of gmerlin_avdecoder from your CVS
> >> repository and we've found another licensing issue:
> >> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 10:28 AM, <j...@users.alioth.debian.org> wrote:
> >>> -Files: ./include/bgav_sem.h
> >>> -Copyright: 1996-1997, HD Associates, Inc.
> >>> - 2001-2010, Members of the Gmerlin project
> >>> -License: BSD-4 and GPL-2+
> >>> +Files: ./lib/os_inet_aton.c
> >>> +Copyright: 1983, 1990, 1993, The Regents of the University of California
> >>> +License: BSD-4
> >>> FIXME
> >> As reported above, the file lib/os_inet_aton.c  is licensed as
> >> 4-clause BSD and it's not compatible with GPL-2.
> >> Would you fix this?
> > now that gmerlin seems to apporach the next release, this becomes an
> > issue for use again.
> > however, in an older email of mine i discovered:
> >> - lib/os.c has the BSD-code moved away into lib/os_inet_aton.c (which
> >> can be excluded by us)
> > so we could just filter the lib/os_inet_aton.c out, patch the MakefileS
> > to not build this file and be done
> > (looking at the offending file it is totally protected by "ifndef
> > HAVE_INET_ATON", and i think we can safely assume that we _do have_
> > inet_aton, no?
> Does having it sit in the source (and not build it) present any
> problems? I don't think so, since the BSD-4 stuff does not mix with
> the GPL-2 stuff.
Its kind of grey if this is ok. The license seems to say that the
advertising clause would only take effect if the file is used in the
software, not just distributed as is. But its not very clear to me.
Much better would be if upstream (Burkhard) used one of the New BSD or
GPL'ed version of this file, like:
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list