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

[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
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>