Bug#658084: libav-extra: Really necessary?

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On 12-01-31 at 04:30pm, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Di, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:37:23 (CET), Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> > I think what we are doing with libav-extra is a bit insincere. We 
> > pretend to play fair by only building packages against the GPL-v2+ 
> > libav libraries but then offer the possibly license-incompatible 
> > GPL-v3 libraries from the libav-extra packages for runtime linking.
> 
> So why is that insincere? What's the problem with that?

Problem is that other packages can carefully ensure not violating 
licensing when linking against libav, and libav-extra then "distorts" 
that by causing Debian as a whole to not ensure against same violation.

How about having libav-extra package conflict with other packages known 
to not be compatible with the tighter licensing?


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20120131/909735fb/attachment.pgp>