Re: [Libcdio-devel] Packaging libcdio 0.92 and libcdio-paranoia 10.2+0.90+1 for Debian

[Rocky Bernstein]

>  I updated the libcdio-paranoia license to GPLv3 to match libcdio.

I am not sure we can do this.

 GPLv2 I think means GPLv2 and *only* GPLv2. LGPL of Paranoia 10.2 allows
 LGPL 2.1 or later but I don't think GPL.

I mention this because this is why libcdio-paranoia and libcdio were split
in the first place: we couldn't mix GPL 3 or later with GPL 2 only or LGPL.

I am sorry for the confusion and apologize that I wasn't clear about the
history of this before.

Although I don't care to spend time thinking much about this, there are
lots of other people inside and outside the project that do.




On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Robert Kausch <address@hidden>
wrote:

> I updated the libcdio-paranoia license to GPLv3 to match libcdio. Also
> updated two files in the libcdio tree that were still GPLv2.
>
> @Nicolas: Please have a look at the sources at https://github.com/rocky/
> libcdio-paranoia. Everything should be consistent now.
>
> Am 25.09.2014 um 15:09 schrieb Rocky Bernstein:
>
>  Ok. Would you and Nicolas make the changes as appropriate? I'll hold off
>> on
>> a release after you both go over this. Thanks.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Robert Kausch <address@hidden>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Had a look at libcdio again and realized it's GPL only.
>>>
>>> In that case, I think we should go the other way and make
>>> libcdio-paranoia
>>> GPL only as well. It cannot be used without libcdio anyway so anything
>>> using it would have to be GPL anyway. The LGPL option for
>>> libcdio-paranoia
>>> does not really make sense in that case.
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>> Am 25.09.2014 um 14:27 schrieb Robert Kausch:
>>>
>>>   Hi Rocky,
>>>
>>>> I had a look at the licenses of cdparanoia 10.2 and cdio-paranoia source
>>>> files.
>>>>
>>>> In cdparanoia, the only files that carry a GPL license are cachetest.c
>>>> and main.c (which would be cd-paranoia.c in cdio-paranoia). Everything
>>>> else, including the whole library, is LGPL licensed.
>>>>
>>>> In cdio-paranoia about half the files are GPL, the other half LGPL. I
>>>> think this is because the license of cdparanoia used to be the GPL until
>>>> svn revision 14871. In revision 14872, they changed the license to LGPL,
>>>> but that switch was never made in cdio-paranoia.
>>>>
>>>> As cdio-paranoia is now based on the latest cdparanoia release which,
>>>> except for the two files mentioned above, is LGPL licensed, we could
>>>> change
>>>> the license to LGPL as well. Only the cd-paranoia tool would still have
>>>> to
>>>> be GPL licensed.
>>>>
>>>> Tell me what you think.
>>>>
>>>> Robert
>>>>
>>>> Am 15.09.2014 um 13:43 schrieb Rocky Bernstein:
>>>>
>>>>  My intent was to make this identical to
>>>>> http://downloads.xiph.org/releases/cdparanoia/
>>>>> cdparanoia-III-10.2.src.tgz
>>>>> from https://www.xiph.org/paranoia/down.html
>>>>>
>>>>> I may have botched things though. If there are discrepancies, I'd
>>>>> appreciate it if you or others would fix and make a pull request off of
>>>>> the
>>>>> git repository https://github.com/rocky/libcdio-paranoia
>>>>>
>>>>> I see that doc/FAQ.txt isn't in the source mentioned above. So maybe we
>>>>> remove that file?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 5:56 AM, Nicolas Boullis <address@hidden>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>   Hi Rocky,
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 05:17:26AM -0400, Rocky Bernstein wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Lastly, the doc/FAQ.txt file has a copyright notice, with the "All
>>>>>>> rights reserved." sentence. Isn't it non-free?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Sorry for bothering you, but do you have an opinion on this one?
>>>>>> I cannot start the Debian transition to libcdio 0.92 (or the upcoming
>>>>>> 0.93) without packages for libcdio-paranoia, and I cannot ship a
>>>>>> non-free documentation within Debian main.
>>>>>> Do you have a reason to think this file is free? Or should I use a
>>>>>> stripped-down tarball?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Nicolas
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>