Bug#582274: Isn't VP8 released as BSD?
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 18:10 +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On Do, Jun 03, 2010 at 16:22:28 (CEST), Nathan A. Stine wrote: > > > On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 08:51 +0200, Sebastian Dröge wrote: > >> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 23:10 -0400, Nathan A. Stine wrote: > >> > Or so I thought. > >> > > >> > Diego Biurrun marked it as non-free upstream, but I'd think Debian Legal > >> > should take a look at the license to make their own determination. > >> > >> Well, it's IMHO not non-free (as in not DFSG free) but it's definitely > >> GPLv2 incompatible because of the restriction in the patent license > >> (interesting here: if they didn't include a patent license nobody > >> would've complained although they had no official rights to use the > >> patents...). If your software is (L)GPLv2+ or v3 I guess everything is > >> fine, if it's LGPLv2 it's probably fine too. > >> > >> But you're right, Debian Legal should probably look at it as well. I've > >> already asked the ftp-masters to give their statement about the license > >> and compatibility with other licenses but they didn't answer yet. > > > > FFmpeg states that it is available under (L)GPL2+. > > the debian FFmpeg package is distributed under *GPL2*. We do enable > important parts (e.g., in libswscale) that are not enable in LGPL mode. > GPL3 would make linking other GPL2 only packages problematic. > > In theory, I guess we could provide an additional LGPL only variant of > ffmpeg in some special, non-standard path, but I'm not convinced at all > that this will a) helping here and b) worth the trouble. Luckily Google has revised their license[1]. It seems this change has addressed all concerns of GPLv2 incompatibility. The license for libvpx is now a simple BSD and the patent grant is separate. It also clears up the confusion over whether or not the patient grant still holds up if the code is modified. It does. I would think this would be enough to include this in ffmpeg upstream and part of Debian main. [1]http://webmproject.blogspot.com/2010/06/changes-to-webm-open-source-license.html Best regards, Nathan A. Stine ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#582274: Isn't VP8 released as BSD?
On Do, Jun 03, 2010 at 16:22:28 (CEST), Nathan A. Stine wrote: > On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 08:51 +0200, Sebastian Dröge wrote: >> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 23:10 -0400, Nathan A. Stine wrote: >> > Or so I thought. >> > >> > Diego Biurrun marked it as non-free upstream, but I'd think Debian Legal >> > should take a look at the license to make their own determination. >> >> Well, it's IMHO not non-free (as in not DFSG free) but it's definitely >> GPLv2 incompatible because of the restriction in the patent license >> (interesting here: if they didn't include a patent license nobody >> would've complained although they had no official rights to use the >> patents...). If your software is (L)GPLv2+ or v3 I guess everything is >> fine, if it's LGPLv2 it's probably fine too. >> >> But you're right, Debian Legal should probably look at it as well. I've >> already asked the ftp-masters to give their statement about the license >> and compatibility with other licenses but they didn't answer yet. > > FFmpeg states that it is available under (L)GPL2+. the debian FFmpeg package is distributed under *GPL2*. We do enable important parts (e.g., in libswscale) that are not enable in LGPL mode. GPL3 would make linking other GPL2 only packages problematic. In theory, I guess we could provide an additional LGPL only variant of ffmpeg in some special, non-standard path, but I'm not convinced at all that this will a) helping here and b) worth the trouble. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#582274: Isn't VP8 released as BSD?
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 08:51 +0200, Sebastian Dröge wrote: > On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 23:10 -0400, Nathan A. Stine wrote: > > Or so I thought. > > > > Diego Biurrun marked it as non-free upstream, but I'd think Debian Legal > > should take a look at the license to make their own determination. > > Well, it's IMHO not non-free (as in not DFSG free) but it's definitely > GPLv2 incompatible because of the restriction in the patent license > (interesting here: if they didn't include a patent license nobody > would've complained although they had no official rights to use the > patents...). If your software is (L)GPLv2+ or v3 I guess everything is > fine, if it's LGPLv2 it's probably fine too. > > But you're right, Debian Legal should probably look at it as well. I've > already asked the ftp-masters to give their statement about the license > and compatibility with other licenses but they didn't answer yet. FFmpeg states that it is available under (L)GPL2+. I suppose if the license does meet muster, adding VP8 support would necessarily mean that the entire work would be LGPLv2+ or GPLv3. I wouldn't see how that is a problem. We could just add another build option --enable-gplv3 and put libvpx under it as we do with swscale. Nathan A. Stine ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#582274: Isn't VP8 released as BSD?
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 23:10 -0400, Nathan A. Stine wrote: > Or so I thought. > > Diego Biurrun marked it as non-free upstream, but I'd think Debian Legal > should take a look at the license to make their own determination. Well, it's IMHO not non-free (as in not DFSG free) but it's definitely GPLv2 incompatible because of the restriction in the patent license (interesting here: if they didn't include a patent license nobody would've complained although they had no official rights to use the patents...). If your software is (L)GPLv2+ or v3 I guess everything is fine, if it's LGPLv2 it's probably fine too. But you're right, Debian Legal should probably look at it as well. I've already asked the ftp-masters to give their statement about the license and compatibility with other licenses but they didn't answer yet. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#582274: Isn't VP8 released as BSD?
Or so I thought. Diego Biurrun marked it as non-free upstream, but I'd think Debian Legal should take a look at the license to make their own determination. Anyone as confused as I should take a look at the thread where they discuss the proper problems with the license[1]. I sure hope VP8 gets added to main otherwise we're back in the same boat before Google released VP8. [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/109674/focus=109726 Best regards, Nathan A. Stine ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
