Quantcast

Audacity 2.0.2

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Audacity 2.0.2

Vaughan Johnson-2
We've decided on a very quick release cycle for Audacity 2.0.2.
Currently targeting August 1 for string/code freeze. I'm Release Manager.

Thanks,
Vaughan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Audacity 2.0.2

Vaughan Johnson
Administrator
We've decided on a very quick release cycle for Audacity 2.0.2.
Currently targeting August 1 for string/code freeze. I'm Release Manager.


Thanks,
Vaughan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Audacity 2.0.2

Benjamin Drung-2
In reply to this post by Vaughan Johnson-2
Am Dienstag, den 10.07.2012, 16:54 -0700 schrieb Vaughan Johnson:
> We've decided on a very quick release cycle for Audacity 2.0.2.
> Currently targeting August 1 for string/code freeze. I'm Release Manager.

Can we get the two remaining Debian patches [1,2] discussed before the
freeze?

[1] http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=233
[2] http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=483

--
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Audacity 2.0.2 - #233 "Option to link against system lame and ffmpeg"

David Timms
On 14/07/12 08:11, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Can we get the two remaining Debian patches [1,2] discussed before the
> freeze?
>
> [1] http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=233
"Option to link against system lame and ffmpeg"

Hi Ben, with regard to patch:
http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=233#c27

In the last hunk for src/FFmpeg.cpp and the first hunk for src/FFmpeg.h,
this seems to be a ffmpeg version compatibility change. Would it be
better to be independent of the rest of the patch ?

With regard to system lame/ffmpeg, the compile options already give us
this capability, don't they ?

In Fedora proper, neither ffmpeg nor lame (mp3 decoding/encoding) will
be available. Currently I build it independently for RPM Fusion (the
add-on software repository for Fedora), with the extra ffmpeg/lame
-devel packages present, set the compile flags, and define a conflict in
rpm packaging to indicate that only one of either audacity or
audacity-freeworld (with ffmpeg/mp3) can be installed at once.

In an ideal world, I would not have to have the second
audacity-freeworld package; I would build it in Fedora, and at runtime,
audacity would detect and use the ffmpeg/mp3 libraries if they are
available. I do not think I can do this at the moment, because currently
the audacity compile is against the header (-devel) files from the
ffmpeg/lame packages, and these will never be available on a pure Fedora
linux system. My understanding is being able to dlopen the libraries
goes some way toward making this possible, but I don't actually
understand what this patch is doing, while it appears that it is
actually removing this capability ?

Can you help me to understand the intent of the patch ?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Audacity 2.0.2 - #233 "Option to link against system lame and ffmpeg"

Benjamin Drung-2
Am Samstag, den 14.07.2012, 13:10 +1000 schrieb David Timms:

> On 14/07/12 08:11, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > Can we get the two remaining Debian patches [1,2] discussed before the
> > freeze?
> >
> > [1] http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=233
> "Option to link against system lame and ffmpeg"
>
> Hi Ben, with regard to patch:
> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=233#c27
>
> In the last hunk for src/FFmpeg.cpp and the first hunk for src/FFmpeg.h,
> this seems to be a ffmpeg version compatibility change. Would it be
> better to be independent of the rest of the patch ?
I have split the patch into two parts.

> With regard to system lame/ffmpeg, the compile options already give us
> this capability, don't they ?

No, they just give us the option to use the system header files.

> In Fedora proper, neither ffmpeg nor lame (mp3 decoding/encoding) will
> be available. Currently I build it independently for RPM Fusion (the
> add-on software repository for Fedora), with the extra ffmpeg/lame
> -devel packages present, set the compile flags, and define a conflict in
> rpm packaging to indicate that only one of either audacity or
> audacity-freeworld (with ffmpeg/mp3) can be installed at once.
>
> In an ideal world, I would not have to have the second
> audacity-freeworld package; I would build it in Fedora, and at runtime,
> audacity would detect and use the ffmpeg/mp3 libraries if they are
> available. I do not think I can do this at the moment, because currently
> the audacity compile is against the header (-devel) files from the
> ffmpeg/lame packages, and these will never be available on a pure Fedora
> linux system. My understanding is being able to dlopen the libraries
> goes some way toward making this possible, but I don't actually
> understand what this patch is doing, while it appears that it is
> actually removing this capability ?
Yes. My patch adds a configure option to remove the possibility to
dlopen FFmpeg/lame.

You seem to want to go in the other direction: You want to build
audacity without the FFmpeg/lame libraries, but have the option to
dlopen the libraries on runtime. This should be already doable by using
the headers from lib-src/ffmpeg/.

> Can you help me to understand the intent of the patch ?

The patch adds a configure option to disable dlopen libraries. Nothing
will change unless --disable-dynamic-loading is specified when running
configure. Calling configure with --disable-dynamic-loading will dynamic
link FFmpeg/lame. In this case you need the FFmpeg and lame libraries to
run Audacity.

In Debian and Ubuntu, libav (the fork on FFmpeg) and lame are available.
The Audacity package is built with --disable-dynamic-loading and the
package depends on the libav and lame library packages. The package
building tools are creating those dependencies due to the dynamic
linking of audacity against these libraries.

--
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Audacity 2.0.2 - #233 "Option to link against system lame and ffmpeg"

David Timms
On 15/07/12 02:08, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> I have split the patch into two parts.
Cool, might make it easier to get accepted.


> You seem to want to go in the other direction: You want to build
> audacity without the FFmpeg/lame libraries, but have the option to
> dlopen the libraries on runtime. This should be already doable by using
> the headers from lib-src/ffmpeg/.
I didn't know that would work. But, wouldn't the user need to have the
matching version of ffmpeg installed, that the audacity/ffmpeg/header is ?

> Calling configure with --disable-dynamic-loading will dynamic
> link FFmpeg/lame. In this case you need the FFmpeg and lame libraries to
> run Audacity.
OK. So with the option set, Audacity will fail to start at all ?


> In Debian and Ubuntu, libav (the fork on FFmpeg) and lame are available.
> The Audacity package is built with --disable-dynamic-loading and the
> package depends on the libav and lame library packages. The package
> building tools are creating those dependencies due to the dynamic
> linking of audacity against these libraries.
Is this so that users can choose to not have ffmpeg/mp3 installed (eg a
suggests rather than a requirement) within the deb world ?

I'm going to give both patches a run.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Audacity 2.0.2 - #233 "Option to link against system lame and ffmpeg"

Richard Ash (audacity-help)
On Sun, 2012-07-15 at 22:15 +1000, David Timms wrote:

> > You seem to want to go in the other direction: You want to build
> > audacity without the FFmpeg/lame libraries, but have the option to
> > dlopen the libraries on runtime. This should be already doable by using
> > the headers from lib-src/ffmpeg/.
> I didn't know that would work. But, wouldn't the user need to have the
> matching version of ffmpeg installed, that the audacity/ffmpeg/header is ?
>
> > Calling configure with --disable-dynamic-loading will dynamic
> > link FFmpeg/lame. In this case you need the FFmpeg and lame libraries to
> > run Audacity.
> OK. So with the option set, Audacity will fail to start at all ?

Yes, because it puts dynamic linkage into the ELF header, and ld.so will
fail to resolve that linkage.

>
> > In Debian and Ubuntu, libav (the fork on FFmpeg) and lame are available.
> > The Audacity package is built with --disable-dynamic-loading and the
> > package depends on the libav and lame library packages. The package
> > building tools are creating those dependencies due to the dynamic
> > linking of audacity against these libraries.
> Is this so that users can choose to not have ffmpeg/mp3 installed (eg a
> suggests rather than a requirement) within the deb world ?
The result of Benjamin's patches is that users _loose_ the facility to
choose not having LAME or FFmpeg - Audacity acquires these as hard
dependencies.

Ubuntu favours this route seemingly on the basis that a hard failure is
easier to deal with automatically than a run-time error presented to the
user. One of the reasons these patches haven't just been applied is that
I don't like the support implications for audacity of yet more configure
script options (to test and support) and of Linux builds being linked
differently depending on compile time options (which users won't known
in most cases).

Finally, the reason the patch for newer ffmpeg isn't going in is the
same as the reason the one for ffmpeg 0.10 from Gentoo isn't going in-
they are or are likely to break compatibility with the ffmpeg 0.6.2
binaries for windows we are supplying. Until we have newer binary builds
for those two available and tested, we can't break those platforms.

Richard


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Audacity 2.0.2 - #233 "Option to link against system lame and ffmpeg"

Vaughan Johnson
Administrator
On 7/15/2012 8:46 AM, Richard Ash wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-07-15 at 22:15 +1000, David Timms wrote:
>>> [...]
> The result of Benjamin's patches is that users _loose_ the facility to
> choose not having LAME or FFmpeg - Audacity acquires these as hard
> dependencies.

That borders on license violation, I think. Or at least, over-affiliates
us with LAME and FFmpeg. We *want* users to have to do something extra
to get LAME or FFmpeg, so it's their choice, not ours.

I think that puts bug 233 as a WONT_FIX, unless I hear otherwise.

- Vaughan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Audacity 2.0.2 -- bug 483

Vaughan Johnson
Administrator
In reply to this post by Benjamin Drung-2
On 7/13/2012 3:11 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 10.07.2012, 16:54 -0700 schrieb Vaughan Johnson:
>> We've decided on a very quick release cycle for Audacity 2.0.2.
>> Currently targeting August 1 for string/code freeze. I'm Release Manager.
>
> Can we get the two remaining Debian patches [1,2] discussed before the
> freeze?
>
> [1] http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=233

(other thread)

> [2] http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/show_bug.cgi?id=483
>

Looks to me it's still not agreed on, and has an open question in
comment 22.

- V


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Audacity 2.0.2 - #233 "Option to link against system lame and ffmpeg"

Benjamin Drung-2
In reply to this post by David Timms
Am Sonntag, den 15.07.2012, 22:15 +1000 schrieb David Timms:
> > You seem to want to go in the other direction: You want to build
> > audacity without the FFmpeg/lame libraries, but have the option to
> > dlopen the libraries on runtime. This should be already doable by using
> > the headers from lib-src/ffmpeg/.
> I didn't know that would work. But, wouldn't the user need to have the
> matching version of ffmpeg installed, that the audacity/ffmpeg/header is ?

It doesn't need to be the same, but it needs to be a compatible one
(FFmpeg 0.6 up to FFmpeg 0.8?). You need to test the binary to detect
incompatibilities.

--
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Audacity 2.0.2 - #233 "Option to link against system lame and ffmpeg"

Benjamin Drung-2
In reply to this post by Vaughan Johnson
Am Montag, den 16.07.2012, 16:21 -0700 schrieb Vaughan Johnson:

> On 7/15/2012 8:46 AM, Richard Ash wrote:
> > On Sun, 2012-07-15 at 22:15 +1000, David Timms wrote:
> >>> [...]
> > The result of Benjamin's patches is that users _loose_ the facility to
> > choose not having LAME or FFmpeg - Audacity acquires these as hard
> > dependencies.
>
> That borders on license violation, I think. Or at least, over-affiliates
> us with LAME and FFmpeg. We *want* users to have to do something extra
> to get LAME or FFmpeg, so it's their choice, not ours.
Why does linking to (L)GPL libraries border a license violation? You use
many GPL and LGPL libraries already.

Do you fear a patent violation instead? Then you do not have to worry,
because the patch only affects your source tarball distribution, but not
your binary distribution.

--
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Audacity 2.0.2 - #233 "Option to link against system lame and ffmpeg"

Stevethefiddle
On 17 July 2012 10:53, Benjamin Drung <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am Montag, den 16.07.2012, 16:21 -0700 schrieb Vaughan Johnson:
>> On 7/15/2012 8:46 AM, Richard Ash wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2012-07-15 at 22:15 +1000, David Timms wrote:
>> >>> [...]
>> > The result of Benjamin's patches is that users _loose_ the facility to
>> > choose not having LAME or FFmpeg - Audacity acquires these as hard
>> > dependencies.
>>
>> That borders on license violation, I think. Or at least, over-affiliates
>> us with LAME and FFmpeg. We *want* users to have to do something extra
>> to get LAME or FFmpeg, so it's their choice, not ours.
>
> Why does linking to (L)GPL libraries border a license violation? You use
> many GPL and LGPL libraries already.
>
> Do you fear a patent violation instead? Then you do not have to worry,
> because the patch only affects your source tarball distribution, but not
> your binary distribution.

What effect would that that have on other Linux distributions that
take a more cautious line on patent/licensing issues? Would it prevent
them from including Audacity in their main repositories?

Steve


>
> --
> Benjamin Drung
> Debian & Ubuntu Developer
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> audacity-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Audacity 2.0.2 - #233 "Option to link against system lame and ffmpeg"

Benjamin Drung-2
Am Dienstag, den 17.07.2012, 15:32 +0100 schrieb Steve the Fiddle:

> On 17 July 2012 10:53, Benjamin Drung <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Am Montag, den 16.07.2012, 16:21 -0700 schrieb Vaughan Johnson:
> >> On 7/15/2012 8:46 AM, Richard Ash wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 2012-07-15 at 22:15 +1000, David Timms wrote:
> >> >>> [...]
> >> > The result of Benjamin's patches is that users _loose_ the facility to
> >> > choose not having LAME or FFmpeg - Audacity acquires these as hard
> >> > dependencies.
> >>
> >> That borders on license violation, I think. Or at least, over-affiliates
> >> us with LAME and FFmpeg. We *want* users to have to do something extra
> >> to get LAME or FFmpeg, so it's their choice, not ours.
> >
> > Why does linking to (L)GPL libraries border a license violation? You use
> > many GPL and LGPL libraries already.
> >
> > Do you fear a patent violation instead? Then you do not have to worry,
> > because the patch only affects your source tarball distribution, but not
> > your binary distribution.
>
> What effect would that that have on other Linux distributions that
> take a more cautious line on patent/licensing issues? Would it prevent
> them from including Audacity in their main repositories?
It would have no effect, because the distributions can decide on compile
time what kind of linkage they want. Nothing will change with the patch
unless --disable-dynamic-loading is passed to configure.

--
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Audacity 2.0.2 - Bugzilla 233 "Option to link against system lame and ffmpeg"

Vaughan Johnson
Administrator
On 7/17/2012 8:46 AM, Benjamin Drung wrote:

> Am Dienstag, den 17.07.2012, 15:32 +0100 schrieb Steve the Fiddle:
>> On 17 July 2012 10:53, Benjamin Drung <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Am Montag, den 16.07.2012, 16:21 -0700 schrieb Vaughan Johnson:
>>>> On 7/15/2012 8:46 AM, Richard Ash wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 2012-07-15 at 22:15 +1000, David Timms wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>> The result of Benjamin's patches is that users _loose_ the facility to
>>>>> choose not having LAME or FFmpeg - Audacity acquires these as hard
>>>>> dependencies.
>>>>
>>>> That borders on license violation, I think. Or at least, over-affiliates
>>>> us with LAME and FFmpeg. We *want* users to have to do something extra
>>>> to get LAME or FFmpeg, so it's their choice, not ours.
>>>
>>> Why does linking to (L)GPL libraries border a license violation? You use
>>> many GPL and LGPL libraries already.
>>>
>>> Do you fear a patent violation instead?

Yes, thanks.


>>>Then you do not have to worry,
>>> because the patch only affects your source tarball distribution, but not
>>> your binary distribution.

I don't know the law on that. Can anybody else confirm?


>>
>> What effect would that that have on other Linux distributions that
>> take a more cautious line on patent/licensing issues? Would it prevent
>> them from including Audacity in their main repositories?
>
> It would have no effect, because the distributions can decide on compile
> time what kind of linkage they want. Nothing will change with the patch
> unless --disable-dynamic-loading is passed to configure.
>

Likewise, more comments on this point, please.

Thanks,
Vaughan


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Audacity 2.0.2 - Bugzilla 233 "Option to link against system lame and ffmpeg"

Benjamin Drung-2
Am Dienstag, den 24.07.2012, 17:57 -0700 schrieb Vaughan Johnson:

> On 7/17/2012 8:46 AM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, den 17.07.2012, 15:32 +0100 schrieb Steve the Fiddle:
> >> On 17 July 2012 10:53, Benjamin Drung <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> Am Montag, den 16.07.2012, 16:21 -0700 schrieb Vaughan Johnson:
> >>>> On 7/15/2012 8:46 AM, Richard Ash wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 2012-07-15 at 22:15 +1000, David Timms wrote:
> >>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>> The result of Benjamin's patches is that users _loose_ the facility to
> >>>>> choose not having LAME or FFmpeg - Audacity acquires these as hard
> >>>>> dependencies.
> >>>>
> >>>> That borders on license violation, I think. Or at least, over-affiliates
> >>>> us with LAME and FFmpeg. We *want* users to have to do something extra
> >>>> to get LAME or FFmpeg, so it's their choice, not ours.
> >>>
> >>> Why does linking to (L)GPL libraries border a license violation? You use
> >>> many GPL and LGPL libraries already.
> >>>
> >>> Do you fear a patent violation instead?
>
> Yes, thanks.
>
>
> >>>Then you do not have to worry,
> >>> because the patch only affects your source tarball distribution, but not
> >>> your binary distribution.
>
> I don't know the law on that. Can anybody else confirm?
IANAL, but distributing source code seems to be safe. LAME, FFmpeg, x264
are all distributed in source code form for a long time and I am not
aware of lawsuit against them. You can't judge, if a users who compiles
your source code violate a patent. They could have a license that allows
it.

Your Windows and Mac binaries are not affected by the patch.

> >> What effect would that that have on other Linux distributions that
> >> take a more cautious line on patent/licensing issues? Would it prevent
> >> them from including Audacity in their main repositories?
> >
> > It would have no effect, because the distributions can decide on compile
> > time what kind of linkage they want. Nothing will change with the patch
> > unless --disable-dynamic-loading is passed to configure.
> >
>
> Likewise, more comments on this point, please.
Here's what Debian says to this topic:
http://www.debian.org/reports/patent-faq

--
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Audacity 2.0.2 - Bugzilla 233 "Option to link against system lame and ffmpeg"

Gale
Administrator

A practical rather than legal question - IIRC the patches that
Debian use remove the Libraries section of Preferences.

If that is still the case, what happens when we re-introduce
FFmpeg On-Demand, which has a checkbox in Libraries
Preferences?




Gale


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Audacity 2.0.2 - Bugzilla 233 "Option to link against system lame and ffmpeg"

Benjamin Drung-2
Am Sonntag, den 29.07.2012, 05:21 +0100 schrieb Gale Andrews:
> A practical rather than legal question - IIRC the patches that
> Debian use remove the Libraries section of Preferences.

Yes.

> If that is still the case, what happens when we re-introduce
> FFmpeg On-Demand, which has a checkbox in Libraries
> Preferences?

We either could get the Libraries section back with just this checkbox
or we could move the checkbox somewhere else (for example to the
Import / Export section).

--
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
audacity-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Loading...