faad2 2.5 licensing issues revisited

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Friday, 12 October 2007 at 08:44, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> >Hi.
> >
> >Looks like we may yet have to revert back to FAAD2 CVS snapshot from
> >2004-09-15, i.e. before the controversial README change.
> >
> >I've been talking to FFmpeg/MPlayer developers and when I pointed them to
> >http://bugzilla.livna.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1482#c4 , they immediately said
> >it was GPL incompatible. After re-reading this again I have to agree. That
> >is to say, we can still distribute it, but we can't distribute GPL binaries
> >linked against it. At least that's what I think.
> >
> >We could build LGPL'd FFmpeg and then it could be linked against faad2-2.5,
> >but some parts of FFmpeg are GPL and thus would not be compiled. MPlayer
> >comes with its own faad2 snapshot from before the change. I haven't checked
> >other apps.
> >
> 
> Has anyone tried to contact faad2 upstream about these problems? Maybe they 
> are willing to add an exception that the advertising clause does not need 
> to be followed by derived works which are under the GPL? This is what for 
> example imlib2 does, and according to the FSF imlib2's license is GPL v2 & 
> v3 compatible. (Note actually imlib2 says that no advertising is necessary 
> if a derived work comes with full sourcecode).

I've just sent them an e-mail asking to remove the clause. We'll see what
their reply will be, if any. In the meantime, I'd like to ask our admins to
remove faad2-2.5 binaries from the devel repository. I will also revert
faad2 in devel to the original livna version (based on a snapshot before
the controversial change appeared) by tomorrow, 12:00 UTC, if there are
no objections (I can't imagine any).

Regards,
R.

-- 
Fedora contributor http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DominikMierzejewski
Livna contributor http://rpm.livna.org MPlayer developer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
        -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"