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 clo...@igalia.com 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?
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?
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com 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?
On 09/05/13 23:27, Adam M. Costello wrote: Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com: 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
Re: Bug#694257: fdk-aac: who knows more?
Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com writes: On 09/05/13 23:27, Adam M. Costello wrote: Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com: 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: fdk-aac: who knows more?
Been reading the license. It's nice to point out explicit terms that are deemed non-free to back-up any claim, otherwise it sounds like FUD.. The part of the license that does not seem DFSG-compliant to me is this one: You may not charge copyright license fees for anyone to use, copy or distribute the FDK AAC Codec software or your modifications thereto. This indeed appears to contradict DSFG #6: --- 6: No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. --- HOWEVER, I am not sure what the term COPYRIGHT LICENSE exactly means. I would like to know if someone else could shed more light on this expression, perhaps with some german legal background as I suspect it to be the litteral translation by the Fraunhofer institute of some german legal notion. If one thinks of the Android case where this code was extracted from, this part of the license seems to mean that it is possible to distribute and charge for a software that incorporates the encoder in binary form _but_ that free access to the source code, without a copyright license fee, must be provided, which is what Android is doing and the reason this code has been released to begin with. If that is indeed the meaning of the license, then this would pretty much be equivalent to the GPL requirements on modification and access to the source code and so I would not see any other reason to consider this license non-free. Anyone? Romain 2012/9/3 Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com: Am 02.08.2012 10:04, schrieb Fabian Greffrath: Is fdk-aac finally the first *free* high-quality AAC encoder or is it just the next *non-free* one after FAAC? Nobody? ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers ___ 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: fdk-aac: who knows more?
Hi there.
On Sep 03 2012, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Am 02.08.2012 10:04, schrieb Fabian Greffrath:
Is fdk-aac finally the first *free* high-quality AAC encoder or is it
just the next *non-free* one after FAAC?
Nobody?
Sorry for the late reply (only now catching up with some Debian-related
stuff). Where should I learn more about this AAC encoder?
Regards,
--
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFC
http://rb.doesntexist.org/blog : Projects : https://github.com/rbrito/
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
___
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: fdk-aac: who knows more?
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Rogério Brito rbr...@ime.usp.br wrote: Hi there. On Sep 03 2012, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Am 02.08.2012 10:04, schrieb Fabian Greffrath: Is fdk-aac finally the first *free* high-quality AAC encoder or is it just the next *non-free* one after FAAC? Nobody? Sorry for the late reply (only now catching up with some Debian-related stuff). Where should I learn more about this AAC encoder? Here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/opencore-amr/files/fdk-aac/ and here: https://github.com/mstorsjo/fdk-aac Regards, Reinhard -- 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: fdk-aac: who knows more?
Am 02.08.2012 10:04, schrieb Fabian Greffrath: Is fdk-aac finally the first *free* high-quality AAC encoder or is it just the next *non-free* one after FAAC? Nobody? ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
fdk-aac: who knows more?
Hi all, I have just seen that another AAC encoder library called fdk-aac has been derived from the Android sources and caused some stir in the community because of its ambigous license terms. Support for this library has been instantly added to libav, but it has since then been moved to the non-free feature set. This is a pity, as it seems to be a rather high-quality encoder and more feature-complete than vo-aacenc. Does someone know if the license situation is going to change and if it thus makes sense to prepare this package for Debian? Is fdk-aac finally the first *free* high-quality AAC encoder or is it just the next *non-free* one after FAAC? - Fabian ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
