On Nov 19, 2014 8:24 AM, "Nicolas George" <george@nsup.org> wrote:
>
> Le nonidi 29 brumaire, an CCXXIII, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> > Possibly we can simplify even further:
> >
> > * Have package libavcodec-extra-NN provide virtual libavcodec-extra
> > (i.e. non-versioned name of itself)
> > * Let GPLv2 packages conflict against libavcodec-extra (i.e. not
> > replace but complement existing suggests/recommends/depends).
> >
> > How does that sound?
>
> I think this discussion has lost something from view:
>
> It is perfectly legal and compatible with the license to USE a GPLv2 program
> with a GPLv3 shared library or the other way around. Licenses can only
> control distribution, not use, and the GPL does not try to do so.
>
> Therefore, I do not believe this kind of conflict is in the users' best
> interest.
You are missing that users may be distributors themselves, as indicated in my example earlier in this thread.
>
> Actually, there is not much that Debian must do to ensure compliance with
> the licenses. Possibly prevent BUILD a binary .deb package from GPLv2 source
> when the GPLv3 library is installed.
That was basically my position so far. Andreas was pointing out that we should also consider redistributors.
Best
Reinhard
> IANAL, but IMHO the core of the problem is that the distribution constraints
> from the GPL are easy to circumvent with shared libraries. And FFmpeg, with
> its optional license settings, already did all the work needed to do so.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Nicolas George
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-multimedia-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: [🔎] 20141119124814.GA15616@phare.normalesup.org">https://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 20141119124814.GA15616@phare.normalesup.org
>