Re: [Bug 374900] Re: Libfaac not LGPL
This explanation makes sense to me, thanks for working on it! Unfortunately, this won't help with bug #412063, but that's life. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/374900 Title: Libfaac not LGPL -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 374900] Re: Libfaac not LGPL
On Fri, 28 May 2010 06:01:30 -, Reinhard Tartler siret...@tauware.de wrote: @archive-admins: Can you please give a status update on this bug? The techboard deemed the packages suitable for release with lucid. AFAIUI, this package should either be removed or promoted to universe. multiverse is clearly the wrong place for this, as we the problems are redistributability matters, not licensing. If I got this wrong, please correct me. I expect this means they would be happy with this then, but we might want to confirm that with them. Thanks, James -- Libfaac not LGPL https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/374900 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 374900] Re: Libfaac not LGPL
Although it's a slightly clunky way of solving the issue, and there are many build dependancies, it'll keep the functionality in Ubuntu Why not just contact medibuntu and ask for a binary distribution with all the non-free license-arguable extras? I think that they already have packages of disputable/non-free redistribution licenses. -- Libfaac not LGPL https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/374900 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 374900] Re: Libfaac not LGPL
Hans, software patent and software license are NOT the same. Read the post above yours by James :) On 4/4/10, Hans henrik_nerg...@hotmail.com wrote: As you can see here it are different in different countries in this matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#United_States So before you remove anything is better to be 100% sure. -- Libfaac not LGPL https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/374900 You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber of the bug. -- Sent from my mobile device -- Libfaac not LGPL https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/374900 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 374900] Re: Libfaac not LGPL
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 07:58:20 -, Hans henrik_nerg...@hotmail.com wrote: If you remove all codecs you just forcing people to go over to Linux Mint, who works out of the box: http://www.linuxmint.com/download.php Why not do a special Ubuntu for USA and Japan and then the rest of the world can use a Ubuntu with all mediacodecs like Mint doing?After all most countries have different laws about this matter. This is not an issue of patents or anything like that. This is a license conflict issue, meaning that the binaries produced from this source package are believed to be not legally redistributable. That is believed to apply regardless of the jurisdiction as it is concerned with copyright and license law, and not patents. You are welcome to have your views on what Ubuntu should do for the benefit of its users, but please make sure you understand the issue at hand when commenting on a particular bug report. Thanks, James -- Libfaac not LGPL https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/374900 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 374900] Re: Libfaac not LGPL
nearly all of them only use aac optionally and can be fixed to not build aganst libfaac. removing faac will annoy our users pretty badly, since it is the most common way to create AAC audio. I hope that removing it will motivate (more) people to contribute to ffaac, ffmpeg's internal AAC encoder, which still lacks some features only libfaac has. -- Libfaac not LGPL https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/374900 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 374900] Re: Libfaac not LGPL
10.04 will ship ffmpeg 0.5, which does not include an aac encoder. if libfaac is removed, ubuntu 10.04 will not contain any useable AAC encoder. -- Libfaac not LGPL https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/374900 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 374900] Re: Libfaac not LGPL
Yes! Great idea! Lets forget all about it just works. Lets annoy/piss-off/confuse/break hundreds if not thousands of unaware end-users by including, without knowledge or consent, into our little battle to further our cause. Thank you for for deciding that we should all be part of some little pissing contest. We will be ever so grateful that the wonderful, all knowing and all seeing developers deigned to include all of us in their holy war. Ooohhh lucky us! Sorry, but the lets piss off all of the users to further our agenda attitude is intolerably arrogant at best and most certainly isn't a solution. On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Reinhard Tartler siret...@tauware.dewrote: nearly all of them only use aac optionally and can be fixed to not build aganst libfaac. removing faac will annoy our users pretty badly, since it is the most common way to create AAC audio. I hope that removing it will motivate (more) people to contribute to ffaac, ffmpeg's internal AAC encoder, which still lacks some features only libfaac has. -- Libfaac not LGPL https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/374900 You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber of the bug. -- Libfaac not LGPL https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/374900 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 374900] Re: Libfaac not LGPL
Tom, libfaac is a pure encoder. This has nothing to do with libfaad, which is an decoder for which I'm not aware of licensing issues so far. libfaac on the other hand... -- Libfaac not LGPL https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/374900 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 374900] Re: Libfaac not LGPL
Just to check, is everyone in agreement that in order to remove libfaac, the ffmpeg decoder would have to be included? Otherwise I predict some pretty serious fallout. I bet the answer would be maybe as a backport. :) @Jim, the unaware end-users (like you and me) have been informed: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/03/aac-codec-to-be-removed-from-ubuntu.html As much as I hate it, it's a fact that there are 2+ licenses on libfaac that make the software/package not distributable. It's also a fact that end-users are now aware of the problematic license and will either seek out a solution with nero[1] or wait for ffmpeg to roll out a better open source alternative. Mind you, while AAC encoding might not be available, AAC decoding (playing aac files) will work (correct me if I'm wrong), since libfaad is a different piece of software. -- Libfaac not LGPL https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/374900 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 374900] Re: Libfaac not LGPL
either seek out a solution with nero[1] [...] [1] http://www.nero.com/enu/technologies-aac-codec.html -- Libfaac not LGPL https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/374900 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 374900] Re: Libfaac not LGPL
For the impatient, add the following line to your medibuntu repo list. deb http://packages.medibuntu.org/ karmic-staging free non-free And ONLY for the impatient. You should be willing to test if nothing breaks and report back if it does. Otherwise wait one week and use karmic instead of karmic-staging. -- Libfaac not LGPL https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/374900 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 374900] Re: Libfaac not LGPL
Soos Gergely wrote: I already waited almost one full month; if I have to wait God knows how much more time can at least someone explain to me in layman's terms why isn't there a medibuntu package? I would say this part is easy. Probably because nobody has requested the Medibuntu maintainers to make one. I just submitted a wish-list bug 490227 for Medibuntu. Lets see if they can help. -- Libfaac not LGPL https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/374900 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
