Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH] package/libopenaptx: drop package

["Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>]

Arnout, All,

On 2021-12-20 21:36 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly:
> On 19/12/2021 12:04, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> >The licensing about libopenaptx is very complicated. Version 0.2.1 was
> >tagged with the sole purpose of relicensing from LGPLv2.1+ to GPLv3.0+:
> >
> >     https://github.com/pali/libopenaptx/commit/811bc18586d634042618d633727ac0281d4170b8
> >
> >However, this is has various issues:
> >
> >   - the code originally comes from ffmpeg, where it was LGPLv2.1+, so
> >     the relicensing is dubious at best;
>  I don't see what is dubious about that: LGPL explicitly allows upgrading to
> GPL (#3) and the + of course means that going from GPL2 to GPL3 is not a
> problem.

IANAL, TINLA, etc of course...

Yes, LGPL-2.1+ is compatible with GPLv3+, which means different pieces
of code under the two licenses can be "cobbled together" and that the
*result* can be conveyed under the terms of the GPLv3+, as the GPLv3+ is
a "superset" of the LGPLV2.1+. However, the individual parts retain
their respective licenses.

However, the LGPLv2.1+ does not allow one to *strip* the code of its
license and *replace* it with another license, even if the LGPLV2.1+ can
be "upgraded" to that other license.

Only the authors of the original code (in this case, the ffmpeg authors)
can relicense their code. Clearly, from the git history and the README,
this has not been the case.

> >   - an explicit ban to f.d.o and Collabora from using that code, and
> >     with a long rant about it, even stating that the license to f.d.o or
> >     Collabora was terminated:
> >         https://github.com/pali/libopenaptx/commit/811bc18586d634042618d633727ac0281d4170b8#commitcomment-54154156
> >
> >         Per §8/LGPL and §8/GPL license was terminated with Collabora and
> >         Freedesktop and was not automatically reinstated. It applies to
> >         all versions of this library, including older and Collabora and
> >         Freedesktop cannot use this library anymore.
> 
>  I don't see how this is relevant to us. Regardless of whether this
> termination can be upheld at all (which I doubt since I don't think
> freedesktop.org, collabora, or anyone in those organisations violated the
> GPL),

Not the "GPL", but the original LGPLv2.1+ that the code was originally
licensed under.

> it's really not our responsibility to inform our users of it. It's
> anyway fairly meaningless - it just means that freedesktop and Collabora (as
> organisations) would not be allowed to re-distribute this package.

Look at the README, too:

    This library and any other project which uses this library must not be used in
    other organizations, projects, applications, libraries (and in any other
    software form) incompatible with libopenaptx licence or where current license of
    this project is violated or where previous version of this library/license was
    violated. Freedesktop and Collabora are examples of such projects which are not
    allowed to use this library in any form due to license violations.

We do have code that originates from f.d.o, and so if a package
originating with f.d.o (e.g. NetworkManager) was to eventually link with
libopenaptx, then that would fall under this restriction.

And even without linking, the "any other software form" is really too
vague, so much so that even mere aggregation, like storing on the same
filesystem image, could be encompassed in that definition, even if that
would be unreasonable. What would also be unreasonable, is that it could
maybe also be applied to a buildsystem that has build recipes for f.d.o.
packages.

> >A set of upstream issues have been raised, in relation with this topic:
> >     https://github.com/pali/libopenaptx/issues/11
> >         Possible license violation
>  This claim that the pkg-config file would invite people to violate the
> license is BS, so closing was the correct action.
> >     https://github.com/pali/libopenaptx/issues/12
> >         Restrictions being invalidated by terms of GPL
>  This issue was answered pretty clearly: the invalidation of the license for
> freedesktop and collabora is not a modification of the license at all. It's
> just informing people of this fact.

All that I was pointing out, is that people *are* concerned about this.

> >     https://github.com/pali/libopenaptx/issues/13
> >         Please provide links or citations for README claims
> >In all cases, the author dismissed those as invalid, with various levels
> >of amiability...
>  I absolutely agree that the tone is acerbic, and that pali is acting out...

I have also seen comments by them in another context, and they also were
not very kind there...

> >This situation is very concerning.
> ... but I don't think this is concerning for Buildroot.

See above; I think it is.

> It's mostly bad news
> for the libopenaptx project. Which is the reason for libfreeaptx [1] to
> exist.

Yeah, I saw that too, and was wondering if we should not just switch
over... However, both projects look like they are a bit stalled...

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 561 099 427 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot