Maia Kozheva <si...@ubuntu.com> writes: > On 09.11.2009 16:05, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > >> Either that, or have them removed from the ubuntu archive because of >> license violation. Or get them ported to libavformat. > > Removal is a bit harsh. Let's look at the rdepends: > > xubuntu-restricted-extras > ubuntu-restricted-extras > mpeg4ip-utils > mpeg4ip-server > libmp4v2-dev > kid3-qt > kid3 > faac > easytag-aac > exfalso > > The first five will pose no problems. kid3 and faac can be built without > libmp4v2 support (in fact, for kid3, this is our only divergence from > Debian).
filed as bug #481789 > exfalso (part of quodlibet) doesn't use libmp4v2 directly, and it is > only in Suggests. It uses the python-mutagen library, which implements > MP4 support entirely in Python and doesn't depend on libmp4v2. In fact, > I have no idea why the suggest is even there - I'll talk to the Debian > maintainer about this. thanks for taking care of this. > easytag-aac is a separate binary package, identical to easytag except > for the packaging. It's an approach similar to gtkpod-aac, two different > packages built with and without libmp4v2 - and I think we should > eventually get rid of easytag-aac just as we made gtkpod-aac a > transitional package in Karmic, by patching the source to load the > library with dlopen/dlsym instead of linking to it. yes, that could be an approach to adress this. > Finally, there is gtkpod, which is patched to use the dlopen approach > and thus not listed here. the dlopen() approach is a trick. It moves the license violation from us as distributors to the users doing the violation at run-time. Still not nice, but still much better for us. > In short, this leaves us with four applications currently using libmp4v2 > in Ubuntu: kid3, faac, gtkpod, and easytag (assuming easytag-aac will be > merged and removed). AFAIUI faac has its own copy of mp4v2 in common/mp4v2. Besides, faac is affected by #374900. I believe that it is as such unredistributable and we should probably have it removed from ubuntu, if we don't manage to replace the problematic files. The fact that I didn't (and nobody else) manage to contact upstream about this isn't very helpful here. > They can all be built without libmp4v2 (sacrificing the functionality > for MP4 metadata), but perhaps we can instead contact upstreams and > ask them to relicense with linking exceptions? If the licenses allow > this, getting an exception at least for gtkpod won't be a problem, > since that code is part mine and part by someone I can contact easily. Yes, such a special excemption to explicitly allow linking against libmp4v2 would indeed solve the matter. > I think mpeg4ip has to go regardless of whether there will be > dependencies on libmp4v2 left. If there are, we'll upload the new > standalone version. Agreed. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
