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

[Robert Kausch]

> 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.
No, I checked that.

All the GPLv2 files said "GPL version 2 or later" so upgrading them to 
GPLv3 is fine.

cdparanoia was released under the LGPL v2.1 without a "later" option, 
but the LGPL v2.1 says:

"You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public 
License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do 
this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that 
they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, 
instead of to this License. (If a newer version than version 2 of the 
ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify 
that version instead if you wish.)"

So relicensing that code under the GPLv3 is fine as well.

Am 26.09.2014 um 08:10 schrieb 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