Bug#694657: closed by Reinhard Tartler <siretart at tauware.de> (Bug#694657: fixed in libav 6:9.1-1)
siretart at gmail.com
Thu Jan 10 17:44:11 UTC 2013
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Francesco Poli
<invernomuto at paranoici.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:55:12 +0100 Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> Oh I'm sorry, I mixed that up. There is no clear answer on that
>> because it depends. Most of the files are LGPL, but some hand-written
>> assembler optimizations are GPL-2+. The configure script offers an
>> --enable-gpl switch that includes those GPL-2+ sources. We do enable
>> this switch for all packages we produce in Debian.
>> In theory, we could probably also provide an LGPL build of libavcodec.
>> Fortunately, nobody has requested that so far.
> Wait, are you saying that those few GPL-licensed files:
> | Files: libavdevice/x11grab.c
> | libavfilter/yadif.h
> | libavfilter/vf_blackframe.c
> | libavfilter/vf_boxblur.c
> | libavfilter/vf_cropdetect.c
> | libavfilter/vf_delogo.c
> | libavfilter/vf_hqdn3d.c
> | libavfilter/vf_yadif.c
> | libavfilter/x86/yadif.c
> | libavfilter/x86/yadif_template.c
> | License: GPL-2+~Libav
> are compiled into, or linked with, each shared object (*.so) shipped in
> all Debian binary packages built from the libav source package?
> In other words, are you saying that all binary packages built from
> the libav Debian source package are effectively under GPL-2+
> (except for libavcodec-extra-* and libav-dbg, which are effectively
> under GPL-3+)?
> Isn't there any binary package effectively under LGPL-2.1+?
Exactly, we currently do not produce any LGPL'ed binary packages in
Debian. In fact, we never did. Technically we could, but that would
require significant additional complexity that I would prefer to avoid
unless absolutely necessary.
> Please clarify, since this may heavily affect the resolution of
> licensing issues for other packages!
I imagine. I hope this mail clarifies the situation!
More information about the pkg-multimedia-maintainers