[2/2] configure: mark libfdk-aac as nonfree

Message ID 1342548832-26029-2-git-send-email-diego@biurrun.de
State Committed
Commit 87246953d8424b52aeb975f22c18f9ee690751ba
Headers show

Commit Message

Diego Biurrun July 17, 2012, 6:13 p.m.
---
Somehow I missed this during review - of course the prudent choice is
not to assume compatibility until it has been confirmed.  In general
compatibility between copyleft-style licenses is tricky...

 configure |    1 +
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

Comments

Justin Ruggles July 17, 2012, 7:25 p.m. | #1
On 07/17/2012 02:13 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> ---
> Somehow I missed this during review - of course the prudent choice is
> not to assume compatibility until it has been confirmed.  In general
> compatibility between copyleft-style licenses is tricky...
> 
>  configure |    1 +
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/configure b/configure
> index d6fede1..8de7e98 100755
> --- a/configure
> +++ b/configure
> @@ -2626,6 +2626,7 @@ die_license_disabled gpl libxvid
>  die_license_disabled gpl x11grab
>  
>  die_license_disabled nonfree libfaac
> +die_license_disabled nonfree libfdk_aac
>  die_license_disabled nonfree openssl
>  
>  die_license_disabled version3 libopencore_amrnb

I agree.

-Justin
Luca Barbato July 18, 2012, 12:43 a.m. | #2
On 07/17/2012 08:13 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> ---
> Somehow I missed this during review - of course the prudent choice is
> not to assume compatibility until it has been confirmed.  In general
> compatibility between copyleft-style licenses is tricky...

We discussed that before the commit, the short version of fdk license
and the verbose (l)gpl version match the restriction.

Or so it seemed to us when we committed the patch. Not sure what changed
in that interpretation.

lu
Jean-Baptiste Kempf July 18, 2012, 5:57 a.m. | #3
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:43:13AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote :
> On 07/17/2012 08:13 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > ---
> > Somehow I missed this during review - of course the prudent choice is
> > not to assume compatibility until it has been confirmed.  In general
> > compatibility between copyleft-style licenses is tricky...
> 
> We discussed that before the commit, the short version of fdk license
> and the verbose (l)gpl version match the restriction.
> 
> Or so it seemed to us when we committed the patch. Not sure what changed
> in that interpretation.

Did any of us ask FLSC, FSFE or Chris?

Best regards,
Luca Barbato July 18, 2012, 6:54 a.m. | #4
On 7/18/12 7:57 AM, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> Did any of us ask FLSC, FSFE or Chris?

I did not, who did/would do?

lu
Diego Biurrun July 18, 2012, 7:49 a.m. | #5
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 07:57:07AM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:43:13AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote :
> > On 07/17/2012 08:13 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > ---
> > > Somehow I missed this during review - of course the prudent choice is
> > > not to assume compatibility until it has been confirmed.  In general
> > > compatibility between copyleft-style licenses is tricky...
> > 
> > We discussed that before the commit, the short version of fdk license
> > and the verbose (l)gpl version match the restriction.
> > 
> > Or so it seemed to us when we committed the patch. Not sure what changed
> > in that interpretation.
> 
> Did any of us ask FLSC, FSFE or Chris?

Derek mailed the SFLC and got a negative response.  Until we get further
clarification I believe we have to assume incompatibility.

Diego
Jean-Baptiste Kempf July 18, 2012, 8:29 a.m. | #6
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 09:49:24AM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote :
> Derek mailed the SFLC and got a negative response.

Negative answer? What do you mean?
Diego Biurrun July 18, 2012, 1:38 p.m. | #7
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:29:46AM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 09:49:24AM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote :
> > Derek mailed the SFLC and got a negative response.
> 
> Negative answer? What do you mean?

The SFLC lawyer said the libfdk-aac license looked (l)gpl-incompatible
to him.

Derek, can you fill in the details please?

Diego
Jean-Baptiste Kempf July 19, 2012, 8:19 a.m. | #8
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 03:38:38PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote :
> The SFLC lawyer said the libfdk-aac license looked (l)gpl-incompatible
> to him.

Well, I am sad, but not surprised.
Luca Barbato July 19, 2012, 11:36 a.m. | #9
On 07/19/2012 10:19 AM, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 03:38:38PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote :
>> The SFLC lawyer said the libfdk-aac license looked (l)gpl-incompatible
>> to him.
> 
> Well, I am sad, but not surprised.
> 

I'd like to have a better understanding

fdk:

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted without
payment of copyright license fees provided that you satisfy the
following conditions:

(A)
You must retain the complete text of this software license in
redistributions of the FDK AAC Codec or
your modifications thereto in source code form.

(B)
You must retain the complete text of this software license in the
documentation and/or other materials
provided with redistributions of the FDK AAC Codec or your modifications
thereto in binary form.
You must make available free of charge copies of the complete source
code of the FDK AAC Codec and your
modifications thereto to recipients of copies in binary form.

(C)
The name of Fraunhofer may not be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this library without
prior written permission.

(D)
You may not charge copyright license fees for anyone to use, copy or
distribute the FDK AAC Codec
software or your modifications thereto.

(E)
Your modified versions of the FDK AAC Codec must carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the software
and the date of any change. For modified versions of the FDK AAC Codec,
the term
"Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android" must be replaced by the term
"Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library
for Android."

Currently the mismatch is (E) more than (D) in my eyes.

D is a match for lgpl-2.1 2. c

    c) You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no
    charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

The second part of E is a stronger version of the non-endorsement clause
from bsd (that is compatible) so I'm not sure it could be considered an
additional restriction.


Could we have a specific detail on which section clashes?

lu
Mans Rullgard July 19, 2012, 12:12 p.m. | #10
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> writes:

> On 07/19/2012 10:19 AM, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 03:38:38PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote :
>>> The SFLC lawyer said the libfdk-aac license looked (l)gpl-incompatible
>>> to him.
>> 
>> Well, I am sad, but not surprised.
>> 
>
> I'd like to have a better understanding
>
> fdk:
>
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification, are permitted without
> payment of copyright license fees provided that you satisfy the
> following conditions:
>
> (A)
> You must retain the complete text of this software license in
> redistributions of the FDK AAC Codec or
> your modifications thereto in source code form.

This is normal and similar to BSD clause 1.

> (B)
> You must retain the complete text of this software license in the
> documentation and/or other materials
> provided with redistributions of the FDK AAC Codec or your modifications
> thereto in binary form.

This is similar to BSD clause 2.

> You must make available free of charge copies of the complete source
> code of the FDK AAC Codec and your modifications thereto to recipients
> of copies in binary form.

This could be seen to be an additional restriction compared to (L)GPL 1:

  You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, [...].

It could also be argued that the "free of charge" requirement applies
only to the source code as such and not to the transfer thereof.

> (C)
> The name of Fraunhofer may not be used to endorse or promote products
> derived from this library without
> prior written permission.

This is the BSD non-endorsement clause with a few words removed.

> (D)
> You may not charge copyright license fees for anyone to use, copy or
> distribute the FDK AAC Codec
> software or your modifications thereto.

This is LGPL 2c in part.  LGPL adds "under the terms of this License."

> (E)
> Your modified versions of the FDK AAC Codec must carry prominent notices
> stating that you changed the software
> and the date of any change.

This is LGPL 2b.

> For modified versions of the FDK AAC Codec, the term "Fraunhofer FDK
> AAC Codec Library for Android" must be replaced by the term
> "Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library
> for Android."

This restriction is probably not compatible with (L)GPL.  Naming
restrictions are cited as rendering the Apache-1.1 and PHP licences
GPL-incompatible.

> Currently the mismatch is (E) more than (D) in my eyes.
>
> D is a match for lgpl-2.1 2. c
>
>     c) You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no
>     charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

Agreed.

> The second part of E is a stronger version of the non-endorsement clause
> from bsd (that is compatible) so I'm not sure it could be considered an
> additional restriction.

I'm afraid the FSF is stricter in its interpretation than you are.

> Could we have a specific detail on which section clashes?

+1
Kieran Kunhya July 19, 2012, 3:51 p.m. | #11
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> wrote:
> Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> writes:
>
>> On 07/19/2012 10:19 AM, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 03:38:38PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote :
>>>> The SFLC lawyer said the libfdk-aac license looked (l)gpl-incompatible
>>>> to him.
>>>
>>> Well, I am sad, but not surprised.
>>>
>>
>> I'd like to have a better understanding
>>
>> fdk:
>>
>> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>> modification, are permitted without
>> payment of copyright license fees provided that you satisfy the
>> following conditions:
>>
>> (A)
>> You must retain the complete text of this software license in
>> redistributions of the FDK AAC Codec or
>> your modifications thereto in source code form.
>
> This is normal and similar to BSD clause 1.
>
>> (B)
>> You must retain the complete text of this software license in the
>> documentation and/or other materials
>> provided with redistributions of the FDK AAC Codec or your modifications
>> thereto in binary form.
>
> This is similar to BSD clause 2.
>
>> You must make available free of charge copies of the complete source
>> code of the FDK AAC Codec and your modifications thereto to recipients
>> of copies in binary form.
>
> This could be seen to be an additional restriction compared to (L)GPL 1:
>
>   You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, [...].
>
> It could also be argued that the "free of charge" requirement applies
> only to the source code as such and not to the transfer thereof.
>
>> (C)
>> The name of Fraunhofer may not be used to endorse or promote products
>> derived from this library without
>> prior written permission.
>
> This is the BSD non-endorsement clause with a few words removed.
>
>> (D)
>> You may not charge copyright license fees for anyone to use, copy or
>> distribute the FDK AAC Codec
>> software or your modifications thereto.
>
> This is LGPL 2c in part.  LGPL adds "under the terms of this License."
>
>> (E)
>> Your modified versions of the FDK AAC Codec must carry prominent notices
>> stating that you changed the software
>> and the date of any change.
>
> This is LGPL 2b.
>
>> For modified versions of the FDK AAC Codec, the term "Fraunhofer FDK
>> AAC Codec Library for Android" must be replaced by the term
>> "Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library
>> for Android."
>
> This restriction is probably not compatible with (L)GPL.  Naming
> restrictions are cited as rendering the Apache-1.1 and PHP licences
> GPL-incompatible.
>
>> Currently the mismatch is (E) more than (D) in my eyes.
>>
>> D is a match for lgpl-2.1 2. c
>>
>>     c) You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no
>>     charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> The second part of E is a stronger version of the non-endorsement clause
>> from bsd (that is compatible) so I'm not sure it could be considered an
>> additional restriction.
>
> I'm afraid the FSF is stricter in its interpretation than you are.
>
>> Could we have a specific detail on which section clashes?
>
> +1

"You may use this FDK AAC Codec software or modifications thereto only
for purposes that are authorized
by appropriate patent licenses."

I think this part is GPL incompatible because it is an additional
restriction (or is it not considered part of the licence?).

Patch

diff --git a/configure b/configure
index d6fede1..8de7e98 100755
--- a/configure
+++ b/configure
@@ -2626,6 +2626,7 @@  die_license_disabled gpl libxvid
 die_license_disabled gpl x11grab
 
 die_license_disabled nonfree libfaac
+die_license_disabled nonfree libfdk_aac
 die_license_disabled nonfree openssl
 
 die_license_disabled version3 libopencore_amrnb