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

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

[Yann E. MORIN]

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;

  - 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.

A set of upstream issues have been raised, in relation with this topic:

    https://github.com/pali/libopenaptx/issues/11
        Possible license violation

    https://github.com/pali/libopenaptx/issues/12
        Restrictions being invalidated by terms of GPL

    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...

This situation is very concerning.

Drop the package to avoid any issue.

Signed-off-by: Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
Cc: Yunhao Tian <t123yh.xyz@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com>
Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Cc: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
Cc: Fabrice Fontaine <fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com>
---
 DEVELOPERS                           |  3 ---
 package/Config.in                    |  1 -
 package/bluez-alsa/bluez-alsa.mk     |  7 -------
 package/libopenaptx/Config.in        | 14 --------------
 package/libopenaptx/libopenaptx.hash |  3 ---
 package/libopenaptx/libopenaptx.mk   | 29 ----------------------------
 6 files changed, 57 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 package/libopenaptx/Config.in
 delete mode 100644 package/libopenaptx/libopenaptx.hash
 delete mode 100644 package/libopenaptx/libopenaptx.mk

diff --git a/DEVELOPERS b/DEVELOPERS
index 35f3be81b8..ecf12f2e16 100644
--- a/DEVELOPERS
+++ b/DEVELOPERS
@@ -2966,9 +2966,6 @@ F:	support/testing/tests/package/test_libftdi1.py
 F:	support/testing/tests/package/test_python_can.py
 F:	utils/scanpypi
 
-N:	Yunhao Tian <t123yh.xyz@gmail.com>
-F:	package/libopenaptx/
-
 N:	Zoltan Gyarmati <zgyarmati@zgyarmati.de>
 F:	package/crudini/
 F:	package/grantlee/
diff --git a/package/Config.in b/package/Config.in
index bcb23132c9..c61ef472e3 100644
--- a/package/Config.in
+++ b/package/Config.in
@@ -1744,7 +1744,6 @@ menu "Multimedia"
 	source "package/libmms/Config.in"
 	source "package/libmpeg2/Config.in"
 	source "package/libogg/Config.in"
-	source "package/libopenaptx/Config.in"
 	source "package/libopenh264/Config.in"
 	source "package/libopusenc/Config.in"
 	source "package/libtheora/Config.in"
diff --git a/package/bluez-alsa/bluez-alsa.mk b/package/bluez-alsa/bluez-alsa.mk
index f5e3aa1245..f81720f767 100644
--- a/package/bluez-alsa/bluez-alsa.mk
+++ b/package/bluez-alsa/bluez-alsa.mk
@@ -69,11 +69,4 @@ else
 BLUEZ_ALSA_CONF_OPTS += --disable-rfcomm
 endif
 
-ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_LIBOPENAPTX),y)
-BLUEZ_ALSA_DEPENDENCIES += libopenaptx
-BLUEZ_ALSA_CONF_OPTS += --with-libopenaptx --enable-aptx --enable-aptx-hd
-else
-BLUEZ_ALSA_CONF_OPTS += --without-libopenaptx --disable-aptx --disable-aptx-hd
-endif
-
 $(eval $(autotools-package))
diff --git a/package/libopenaptx/Config.in b/package/libopenaptx/Config.in
deleted file mode 100644
index 46ff08a2d1..0000000000
--- a/package/libopenaptx/Config.in
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,14 +0,0 @@
-config BR2_PACKAGE_LIBOPENAPTX
-	bool "libopenaptx"
-	# unconditionallly builds a shared lib
-	depends on !BR2_STATIC_LIBS
-	help
-	  This is Open Source implementation of Audio Processing
-	  Technology codec (aptX) originally derived from ffmpeg 4.0
-	  project and licensed under GPLv3+. This codec is mainly used
-	  in Bluetooth A2DP profile.
-
-	  https://github.com/pali/libopenaptx
-
-comment "libopenaptx needs a toolchain w/ dynamic library"
-	depends on BR2_STATIC_LIBS
diff --git a/package/libopenaptx/libopenaptx.hash b/package/libopenaptx/libopenaptx.hash
deleted file mode 100644
index 76b4e66c9b..0000000000
--- a/package/libopenaptx/libopenaptx.hash
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
-# Locally calculated:
-sha256 8ceb4b9ee5adedde47b31e975c1d90c73ad27b6b165a1dcd80c7c545eb65b903 COPYING
-sha256 a19b3b642def6f86441b73dd4efda6e6f13d49e7e2d6e5e91cc7eb464ebb505a libopenaptx-0.2.1.tar.gz
diff --git a/package/libopenaptx/libopenaptx.mk b/package/libopenaptx/libopenaptx.mk
deleted file mode 100644
index c2f5fa2390..0000000000
--- a/package/libopenaptx/libopenaptx.mk
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,29 +0,0 @@
-################################################################################
-#
-# libopenaptx
-#
-################################################################################
-
-LIBOPENAPTX_VERSION = 0.2.1
-LIBOPENAPTX_SITE = $(call github,pali,libopenaptx,$(LIBOPENAPTX_VERSION))
-LIBOPENAPTX_LICENSE = GPL-3.0+
-LIBOPENAPTX_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING
-LIBOPENAPTX_INSTALL_STAGING = YES
-
-define LIBOPENAPTX_BUILD_CMDS
-	$(TARGET_MAKE_ENV) $(MAKE) -C $(@D) $(TARGET_CONFIGURE_OPTS)
-endef
-
-define LIBOPENAPTX_INSTALL_TARGET_CMDS
-	$(TARGET_MAKE_ENV) $(MAKE) -C $(@D) $(TARGET_CONFIGURE_OPTS) \
-		DESTDIR=$(TARGET_DIR) \
-		PREFIX=/usr install
-endef
-
-define LIBOPENAPTX_INSTALL_STAGING_CMDS
-	$(TARGET_MAKE_ENV) $(MAKE) -C $(@D) $(TARGET_CONFIGURE_OPTS) \
-		DESTDIR=$(STAGING_DIR) \
-		PREFIX=/usr install
-endef
-
-$(eval $(generic-package))
-- 
2.25.1

_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot

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

[Yunhao Tian]

Hi Yann,

Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr> 于2021年12月19日周日 19:04写道：
>
> 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;
>
>   - 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.
>
> A set of upstream issues have been raised, in relation with this topic:
>
>     https://github.com/pali/libopenaptx/issues/11
>         Possible license violation
>
>     https://github.com/pali/libopenaptx/issues/12
>         Restrictions being invalidated by terms of GPL
>
>     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...
>
> This situation is very concerning.
>
> Drop the package to avoid any issue.
>

I understand your concerns. If the license problem does really matter,
we could then use version 0.2.0 of this package, which is essentially
the same of 0.2.1, and with proper license. I object removing all the
support just because of the subtle license issue.

Regards,
Yunhao
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot

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

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

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.


>    - 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), 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.


> 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.


>      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...

> This situation is very concerning.

... but I don't think this is concerning for Buildroot. It's mostly bad news for 
the libopenaptx project. Which is the reason for libfreeaptx [1] to exist.

> Drop the package to avoid any issue.

  So I don't think we should drop it.

  Regards,
  Arnout

[1] https://github.com/iamthehorker/libfreeaptx

[snip]
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot

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

[Yann E. MORIN]

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

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

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 20/12/2021 23:08, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> 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.

  Yes it does. As I wrote, section 3:

You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License 
instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do this, you must 
alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that they refer to the 
ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, instead of to this License. (If 
a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Public License has 
appeared, then you can specify that version instead if you wish.) Do not make 
any other change in these notices.

Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for that copy, so 
the ordinary GNU General Public License applies to all subsequent copies and 
derivative works made from that copy.


I.e. anyone (not the copyright holders, but anyone) can apply GPL-2.0+ to the 
code instead of LGPL-2.1+ and continue distributing it under GPL-2.0+. Note the 
irreversible as well.

  And obviously you can go from 2+ to 3-only.


> 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.

  That paragraph says two things:

- You can't use it in a way which is incompatible with the license. Well, duh.

- Freedesktop and Collabora apparently lost their license, so they can't use it. 
Probably not true, but anyway not our problem because we (nor most of our users) 
are Collabora or Freedesktop.



> 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.

  Please note that this README is just a "clarification" (*) of the license 
text, not the license text itself. The license is very simple: GPL-3.0. Nothing 
more, nothing less, no special clauses or exceptions. pali says so themselves in 
one of the issues.

(*) "obfuscation" is probably a better term :-)


  Bottom line: *we're* definitely doing nothing wrong by keeping the package, 
and I don't think we're creating problems for our users either. We're creating 
more problems by removing the package, IMHO.


  Regards,
  Arnout

> 
>>> 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.
> 
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot

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

[Yann E. MORIN]

Arnout, All,

On 2021-12-20 23:30 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly:
> On 20/12/2021 23:08, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
[--SNIP--]
> >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.
> 
>  Yes it does. As I wrote, section 3:
[--SNIP--]
> I.e. anyone (not the copyright holders, but anyone) can apply GPL-2.0+ to
> the code instead of LGPL-2.1+ and continue distributing it under GPL-2.0+.
> Note the irreversible as well.

Indeed. This is something that completely eluded me. Thanks for poking
it at my nose! :-)

[--SNIP--]
>  Bottom line: *we're* definitely doing nothing wrong by keeping the package,
> and I don't think we're creating problems for our users either. We're
> creating more problems by removing the package, IMHO.

OK-ish.

Though, if we were to roll back to 0.2.0, or switch to the 0.2.0-forked
libfreeaptx, we would not have any issue.

Thanks for bearing with me.

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

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

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 21/12/2021 22:19, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> Arnout, All,
> 
> On 2021-12-20 23:30 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly:
>> On 20/12/2021 23:08, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> [--SNIP--]
>>> 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.
>>
>>   Yes it does. As I wrote, section 3:
> [--SNIP--]
>> I.e. anyone (not the copyright holders, but anyone) can apply GPL-2.0+ to
>> the code instead of LGPL-2.1+ and continue distributing it under GPL-2.0+.
>> Note the irreversible as well.
> 
> Indeed. This is something that completely eluded me. Thanks for poking
> it at my nose! :-)
> 
> [--SNIP--]
>>   Bottom line: *we're* definitely doing nothing wrong by keeping the package,
>> and I don't think we're creating problems for our users either. We're
>> creating more problems by removing the package, IMHO.
> 
> OK-ish.
> 
> Though, if we were to roll back to 0.2.0, or switch to the 0.2.0-forked
> libfreeaptx, we would not have any issue.

  Absolutely, either of those options would suit me fine. But I think deleting 
the package is going too far.

  Regards,
  Arnout

> 
> Thanks for bearing with me.
> 
> Regards,
> Yann E. MORIN.
> 
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot