Re: Bug#349693: ITP: gst-fluendo-mp3 -- MP3 decoder plugin for GStreamer
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 09:35 +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > AFAIK that's only if you want to distribute their binary. If you want to
> > distribute their source, then that's just the MIT license.
>
> Yes, that's how I see it too.
>
> > Plenty of GPLd applications in Debian still use GStreamer, so this
> > doesn't solve a real problem.
>
> I think MAD support is in the "ugly" plugins precisely because it has a
> GPL dep (libmad). The fluendo mp3 plugin does not "taint" GStreamer.
> #317129 relates a similar problem.
In summary, Bastian is wrong. LGPLd code can be linked to GPLd code
without problem. It's when you mix in a non-GPL-compatible license as
well (as another module, or program) that the problems arise. I can't
imagine Debian ever including such a module (since I can't imagine
anyone writing a free-but-not-GPL-compatible module), so this isn't a
problem for us.
It only affects people that want to ship GStreamer with both MP3 support
and some proprietary modules like RA or WMA or something, or link it
against their GPL-incompatible program.
Debian ships a number of programs that use GStreamer and are licensed
under the GPL, without a GStreamer module exception. These present the
same "problem" (really, it's just copyleft as intended) as
gstreamer-mad, so gst-fluendo-mp3 doesn't get us anywhere practical,
from a license perspective.
> > 1) -ugly get past NEW, we get MAD, users get MP3 decoding, situation
> > stays as its been for years, or
> > 2) We take the patent issue seriously, and drop all MP3 support.
> > (Speaking with my hat as a DD, and as upstream maintainer of an MP3
> > player that uses GStreamer and doesn't want to deal with two sets of MP3
> > decoding bugs.)
>
> I agree in general with your opinion, but I want to emphasize that I'm
> not preparing fluendo-mp3 _because_ ugly is still in NEW. It's only
> the more open license of fluendo-mp3 which motivated this decision.
Okay. I wondered if this was connected to the long time -ugly has spent
in NEW; I'm very glad to hear it's not.
--
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Reply to: