[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Is libav's current packaging scheme OK for Debian?

(CCing Bálint again, see previous mail in [🔎] 557459E3.6090904@debian.org">https://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 557459E3.6090904@debian.org)

On 07/06/15 16:49, Simon McVittie:
On 07/06/15 14:19, Bálint Réczey wrote:
The question now is how we should interpret DFSG with regard to Live
DVD-s. Should we stop packaging Libav (and later FFmpeg) in the
current scheme because it allows preinstalling hedgewars (GPLv2 only)
with libavcodec-extra-56 making the DVD violating the license of the
packages or let this be a concern for Live DVD creators?
The thing that is not allowed is either distributing a derivative work
of hedgewars source code with additional restrictions beyond those of
the GPL-2, or distributing a derivative work of libav source code with
additional restrictions beyond those of either GPL-2 or GPL-3.

The hedgewars binary is clearly a derivative work of hedgewars source
and, if you believe the FSF's assertions about dynamic linking, libav
source (via the libavcodec56 GPL-2+ binaries, to which it links).

I find it hard to justify how the hedgewars binary could possibly be a
derivative work of libavcodec-extra-56, given that libavcodec-extra-56
was not involved anywhere in the preparation of the hedgewars binary,
which (presumably) only uses published interfaces from libavcodec56.
Those interfaces happen to be compatible with those found in
You don't need the library source either for linking to a GPL library with dlopen(3). Still, the final program is considered [by the FSF] a derivative work of the library. This looks very similar to libreadline issues, see http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/clisp/clisp/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL

On the other hand, building with libavcodec56 but running with libavcodec-extra-56 would be similar to the psql libreadline workaround (bug 603599), currently used in Debian.

Reply to: