Re: Bug#694257: fdk-aac: who knows more?
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > On 10/05/13 07:41, Arto Jantunen wrote: >> The difference between the GPL and the LGPL does solve the problem if >> the program you are developing wants to link to both LGPL licensed and >> GPL incompatible libraries, assuming that the license of the program >> itself is not either GPL or LGPL. Parts of libav are GPL and the rest is >> LGPL, thus the problem remains. > > So the problem all boils down that the fact that libav contains GPL code? > > I was supposing that libav was 100% LGPL (with no GPL code). If libav > contains GPL code then the whole viral nature of the GPL license will > entangle everything. AFAIK there is no practical difference between > being libav 100% GPL or beeing libav 1% GPL. You have to obey the GPL in > both cases, which means that you can't link libav with GPL-incompatible > license software. > > Isn't it? In Debian and Ubuntu, we ship two flavors of libavcodec, one that is GPLv2 licensed, and one that is GPLv3 licensed. None of them is LGPL. HTH. -- 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
Re: Bug#694257: fdk-aac: who knows more?
Quoting Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez (2013-05-10 13:28:20) > On 10/05/13 07:41, Arto Jantunen wrote: > > The difference between the GPL and the LGPL does solve the problem > > if the program you are developing wants to link to both LGPL > > licensed and GPL incompatible libraries, assuming that the license > > of the program itself is not either GPL or LGPL. Parts of libav are > > GPL and the rest is LGPL, thus the problem remains. > > So the problem all boils down that the fact that libav contains GPL > code? > > I was supposing that libav was 100% LGPL (with no GPL code). If libav > contains GPL code then the whole viral nature of the GPL license will > entangle everything. AFAIK there is no practical difference between > being libav 100% GPL or beeing libav 1% GPL. You have to obey the GPL > in both cases, which means that you can't link libav with > GPL-incompatible license software. > > Isn't it? Please read the section "License of the Debian ffmpeg packages" of /usr/share/doc/libav-tools/README.Debian.gz and ask if afterwards these matters are is still uncertain. The very purpose of that text is to clarify situations like this, I believe. So we should promote that text whenever such issue comes up, and improve it if not clear enough. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#694257: fdk-aac: who knows more?
Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez writes: > On 10/05/13 07:41, Arto Jantunen wrote: >> The difference between the GPL and the LGPL does solve the problem if >> the program you are developing wants to link to both LGPL licensed and >> GPL incompatible libraries, assuming that the license of the program >> itself is not either GPL or LGPL. Parts of libav are GPL and the rest is >> LGPL, thus the problem remains. > > So the problem all boils down that the fact that libav contains GPL code? No, not as far as I understand this case. I haven't read through all of the info, but as I see it this is about either avconv linking against the GPL-incompatible fdk-aac or libav itself linking against it. Neither of these options is ok since both libav and avconv are GPL licensed. The difference between LGPL and GPL only matters in the other direction, so even if libav was fully LGPL licensed, it could not link against fdk-aac (due to the previously mentioned "no further restrictions" clause in both GPL and LGPL). -- Arto Jantunen ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#694257: fdk-aac: who knows more?
On 10/05/13 07:41, Arto Jantunen wrote: > The difference between the GPL and the LGPL does solve the problem if > the program you are developing wants to link to both LGPL licensed and > GPL incompatible libraries, assuming that the license of the program > itself is not either GPL or LGPL. Parts of libav are GPL and the rest is > LGPL, thus the problem remains. So the problem all boils down that the fact that libav contains GPL code? I was supposing that libav was 100% LGPL (with no GPL code). If libav contains GPL code then the whole viral nature of the GPL license will entangle everything. AFAIK there is no practical difference between being libav 100% GPL or beeing libav 1% GPL. You have to obey the GPL in both cases, which means that you can't link libav with GPL-incompatible license software. Isn't it? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#694257: fdk-aac: who knows more?
Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez writes: > On 09/05/13 23:27, Adam M. Costello wrote: >> Fabian Greffrath : >> Of course, the library would be much more useful if avconv could use it. >> If libfdk-aac is GPL-incompatible, what does that imply? That avconv >> must not require libfdk-aac to be present at runtime? Could it check >> for the existence of libfdk-aac and dlopen() it if it's found? Would >> that make them independent enough that their licenses wouldn't need to >> be compatible? > > The thing is that libav (ffmpeg) is LGPL (not GPL). So, my understanding > is that it shouldn't be a problem to use a third-party library (fdk-aac > or whatever) even if this library is GPL-incompatible (or even proprietary). > > I tried to clarify this point with libav developers [1]. But the replies > I got where not clear to me so I gave up. They seem to be more > interested in improving the internal AAC encoder of libav. > > I still think that it shouldn't be any problem by linking libav with > fdk-aac or any other library given the LGPL license of libav. But I am > not a lawyer, maybe I'm wrong. As far as I understand you are indeed mistaken about the difference between GPL and LGPL. The reason why GPL licensed software cannot use a GPL-incompatible library is that the resulting binary inherits both licenses. If the licenses are not compatible, the binary cannot be legally distributed at all (it has no valid license). The usual reason why certain licenses are not compatible with the GPL is the clause that says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." causing a license that has a clause that the GPL does not have to immediately become incompatible (the BSD advertisement clause is the most common one, for example OpenSSL has this). This problematic clause is the exact same in both GPL and LGPL. The difference between the GPL and the LGPL does solve the problem if the program you are developing wants to link to both LGPL licensed and GPL incompatible libraries, assuming that the license of the program itself is not either GPL or LGPL. Parts of libav are GPL and the rest is LGPL, thus the problem remains. -- Arto Jantunen ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#694257: fdk-aac: who knows more?
On 09/05/13 23:27, Adam M. Costello wrote: > Fabian Greffrath : > >> Is fdk-aac finally the first *free* high-quality AAC encoder or is it >> just the next *non-free* one after FAAC? > > From what I've read, FAAC is not a high-quality AAC encoder. As far as > I know, fdk-aac is the only high-quality open-source AAC encoder. > > I don't know if fdk-aac is DFSG-free, or GPL-compatible, but even if > it's neither, Debian could still package it, right? There's also a > command-line tool, fdkaac, that uses it. > Yes. If you are interested in packaging it, please go ahead. > Of course, the library would be much more useful if avconv could use it. > If libfdk-aac is GPL-incompatible, what does that imply? That avconv > must not require libfdk-aac to be present at runtime? Could it check > for the existence of libfdk-aac and dlopen() it if it's found? Would > that make them independent enough that their licenses wouldn't need to > be compatible? The thing is that libav (ffmpeg) is LGPL (not GPL). So, my understanding is that it shouldn't be a problem to use a third-party library (fdk-aac or whatever) even if this library is GPL-incompatible (or even proprietary). I tried to clarify this point with libav developers [1]. But the replies I got where not clear to me so I gave up. They seem to be more interested in improving the internal AAC encoder of libav. I still think that it shouldn't be any problem by linking libav with fdk-aac or any other library given the LGPL license of libav. But I am not a lawyer, maybe I'm wrong. > > It's a shame that various open-source licenses fight each other and thus > impede rather than promote the development of free software. > Yes. I agree. This whole incompatibility between open source licenses is a complete mess and a PITA for everybody. I was pushing to ensure that the copyleft-next license that Richard Fontana is creating address this specific point [2] Regards! [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.libav.user/9395 [2] https://github.com/richardfontana/copyleft-next/issues/15 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers