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

[Robert Kausch]

> 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.

Dug a bit deeper; the problem at that time was mixing GPL 3 or later 
with GPL 2 only. libcdio included cdparanoia 9.8 code which was released 
as GPL 2 only, so when libcdio changed to GPL 3 or later, there was a 
problem. The licenses are not compatible, so the split was necessary at 
that point.

Later, libcdio-paranoia upgraded to cdparanoia 10.0 and then 10.2 which 
changed the license to LGPL 2.1 only for the library and GPL 2 or later 
for the tool. Both allow distributing derivative works under the GPL 3 
or later, so there's no problem anymore.

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