On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: > On 12-01-31 at 04:30pm, Reinhard Tartler wrote: >> On Di, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:37:23 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote: >> > I think what we are doing with libav-extra is a bit insincere. We >> > pretend to play fair by only building packages against the GPL-v2+ >> > libav libraries but then offer the possibly license-incompatible >> > GPL-v3 libraries from the libav-extra packages for runtime linking. >> >> So why is that insincere? What's the problem with that? > > Problem is that other packages can carefully ensure not violating > licensing when linking against libav, and libav-extra then "distorts" > that by causing Debian as a whole to not ensure against same violation. > > How about having libav-extra package conflict with other packages known > to not be compatible with the tighter licensing?
That would be an option. Another option would be to have those packages declare a conflicts on libav-extra. nit: wouldn't the "breaks" relationship be more appropriate here? -- regards, Reinhard _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers