Maarten:
Do I conclude correctly from the bug that in pulse 1.0 it isn't true
anymore that the library dependencies are:
libpulse -> libpulsecommon
libpulsecore -> libpulsecommon
I am not familiar enough with PulseAudio to be able to describe the
library dependencies. I just know that programs which use libpulse
fail to compile unless you link in libpulsecore. It seems that
libpulse or libpulsecommon uses symbols in libpulsecore.
I do remember some stuff about circular dependencies. But as only
libpulsecore links to libsamplerate, the above dependency chain would
be the best to have, because libpulse is always LGPL, regardless of
pulse is build with libsamplerate support.
I think it may be ambiguous if libpulse is LGPL if it links in
libpulsecore built with GPL libsamplerate.
At any rate, on Solaris, we are disabling building with libsamplerate
for this reason. It seems a bit ugly that libsamplerate is enabled
by default by the PulseAudio configure script if it is available if
there are these sorts of concerns.
In what way does compiling pulse with --disable-samplerate no solve
your licensing problems here?
Compiling pulse with --disable-samplerate avoids this ambiguity and
ensures that programs which use libpulse are more clearly LGPL. This
is the solution we are using at the moment.
I would not be in favor of removing an _optional_ dependency
alltogether just because enabling it is not desired by some subset of
users.
Me either.
Enabling of an optional depency if all the requirements are met is
quite standard practice.
Sure, but it is also standard practice to not enable an optional
dependency by default if there are reasons why using it may not be
desired. Reasons can include because the optional dependency is
experimental, it affects licensing, etc.
And I'm a bit confused about why you would
have a GPL library installed, but don't want pulse to use it in order
to keep it LGPL. (and of course for these kind of use cases you can
easily override the autodetection)
To me, it seems more "safe" to avoid linking a GPL library into a
LGPL program by default. This is the sort of licensing concern that
would be better for people to make a conscious decision about rather
than having a configure script make a decision for you. Personally I
think this is especially a concern if the LICENSING file is not
well maintained, or contains incorrect or misleading information.
Brian
_______________________________________________
pulseaudio-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss
