[Until we can find out why the below is not making it to the libcdio-devel mailing list directly, I'm posting it on behalf of Nicolas. I have opened a support ticket on this. If there are others that are experiencing this problem, please sent the problem email to me [email protected]]
Hi Rocky and others, I am currently (at last) in the process of packaging libcdio 0.92 for Debian. Packages were uploaded to debian experimental and, as far as I can tell, are fine. However, if I uploaded them to unstable, then, the libcdio-paranoia and libcio-cdda packages would disappear. Hence, I need to upload libcdio-paranoia 10.2+0.90+1 packages at the same time. But looking at libcdio-paranoia, I feel uncomfortable with the license. As I understand it, the libraries are meant to be licensed under the LGPG v2.1 license (or above). But when I look at the source files for the libraries, many files are under the GPL v2 (or above) license, such as lib/cdda_interface/common_interface.c, and some files under the LGPL v2.1 license (with no option for a later version), such as include/cdio/paranoia/cdda.h. Moreover, many files have a copyright notice but no license specified. I guess I should assume that the "default" license (as specified in COPYING-GPL and COPYING-LGPL) applies. As I understand those licenses, give that some source files are GPL-licensed, the whole work cannot be LGPL-licensed, but it may be GPL-2+-licensed (given that the LGPL v2.1 license gives the option to convert to GPL v2 or later). Hence, the libcdio-cdda library might be GPL-2+-licenced, although the COPYING-LGPL files pretends it is LGPL-licenced. Would it be possible to clarify the licenses? Lastly, the doc/FAQ.txt file has a copyright notice, with the "All rights reserved." sentence. Isn't it non-free? Cheers,
