On 12-02-01 at 10:24am, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > Am 31.01.2012 17:55, schrieb Reinhard Tartler: > >Legally, I don't think there is much difference here. However, there > >is a practical difference for Debian as distribution: we do not > >violate the packages if users install a combination of packages that > >result to a license clash. Yes, we can add conflicts, and probably > >have to if we become aware of it, but we cannot be held responsible > >for funky stuff that random users do on their (own) systems. > > Reminds me of the libcurl situation. We have both libcurl (linked > against openssl) and libcurl-gnutls packages in Debian. The latter is > for packages with licenses incompatible to openssl's one. However, > nothing prevents you from installing the openssl-linked libcurl > package on your system if you wish so.
I believe multiple flavors of libcurl is installable concurrently, which means dependent packages can link against a specific one as licensing requires. With libav you provide no way for dependent packages to ensure their licensing is respected. > What parts of libav are actually affected by the two additional > codecs? I guess it's only libavcodec (and maybe libavformat). If it > really boils down to rebuild only one library with aditional > confflags, I begin to like Andres' idea more and integrate libav-extra > into the libav package. If ok legally then certainly that's most elegant. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
