On Nov 19, 2014 8:24 AM, "Nicolas George" <geo...@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-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141119124814.ga15...@phare.normalesup.org >
