[Libcdio-devel] Packaging libcdio 0.92 and libcdio-paranoia 10.2+0.90+1 for Debian

[Rocky Bernstein]

[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 address@hidden

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,