licensing

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

licensing

Frantisek Kluknavsky
Hi,

please, where can I get detailed information about licensing of Sox?

For example files in libgsm claim copyright and refer to COPYRIGHT file,
which is not present. Someone might consider this illegal even in case
these files are unused.

In the worst case this can drive Sox out of Fedora derived
distributions, a future I wish not to see.

Thank you very much.

Frantisek Kluknavsky

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Chris Bagwell

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Frantisek Kluknavsky <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

please, where can I get detailed information about licensing of Sox?


The README contains majority of source code license info.  SoX, the executable (basically sox.c), is GPL and LICENSE.GPL is distributed with source.  libsox, the library, is dual licensed GPL and LGPL and LICENSE.LGPL is included.

libgsm is a bundle of *part* of an external library... Fedora 19 distributes this library as gsm-1.0.13-9.fc19.i686.  Only the src directory from libgsm is distributed.  I should add at least the missing COPYRIGHT file as you mention to our package to clear up its license.

*If* configure detects external gsm header and library, it disables internal library and uses external version.  So you can resolve any license issues by making sure spec file depends on gsm.

lpc10 is a bundle of external library that has no lisense that I can find.  That by FSF standards makes it nonfree and not compatible with GPL/LGPL.  You can use "--without-lpc10" to disable that library and resolve license issue.

Maybe if someone digs deep enough into the related standards publications to describe LPC-10, the authors may have released source code under public domain. http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/comp.speech/Section3/Software/celp-3.2a.html

The remaining files are all sox original work and fall under its GPL/LGPL license.

Hope that helps,
Chris

For example files in libgsm claim copyright and refer to COPYRIGHT file,
which is not present. Someone might consider this illegal even in case
these files are unused.

In the worst case this can drive Sox out of Fedora derived
distributions, a future I wish not to see.

Thank you very much.

Frantisek Kluknavsky

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Frantisek Kluknavsky
On 07/11/2013 04:37 AM, Chris Bagwell wrote:

>
> The README contains majority of source code license info.  SoX, the
> executable (basically sox.c), is GPL and LICENSE.GPL is distributed with
> source.  libsox, the library, is dual licensed GPL and LGPL and
> LICENSE.LGPL is included.
>
> libgsm is a bundle of *part* of an external library... Fedora 19
> distributes this library as gsm-1.0.13-9.fc19.i686.  Only the src
> directory from libgsm is distributed.  I should add at least the missing
> COPYRIGHT file as you mention to our package to clear up its license.
>
> *If* configure detects external gsm header and library, it disables
> internal library and uses external version.  So you can resolve any
> license issues by making sure spec file depends on gsm.
>
> lpc10 is a bundle of external library that has no lisense that I can
> find.  That by FSF standards makes it nonfree and not compatible with
> GPL/LGPL.  You can use "--without-lpc10" to disable that library and
> resolve license issue.
>
> Maybe if someone digs deep enough into the related standards
> publications to describe LPC-10, the authors may have released source
> code under public domain.
> http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/comp.speech/Section3/Software/celp-3.2a.html
>
> The remaining files are all sox original work and fall under its
> GPL/LGPL license.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Chris
>

Thank you very much, I did not notice --without-lpc10 option.

What I am trying to do now is a freely redistributable source tarball
without lpc10 library.
rm -rf ./lpc10; configure --without-lpc10
fails as it tries to create makefile in ./lpc10 directory.
A look into autotool files hints at lpc10 tightly hardwired (comments
like "No need to check; LPC10 is always found") I tried to hack it out
by editing configure.ac, Makefile.am and running autoreconf, despite me
being autotools newbie [1]. Now it compiles successfully. sox still
lists lpc and lpc10 as available formats. Symbol lookup error happens
when trying to use them. This satisfies licensing constraints (I
believe, IANAL) but is a buggy behavior.

What is the right way to use --without-lpc10?

Have a nice day.

Fero


[1]
diff -up wrk/configure.ac.wrk wrk/configure.ac
--- wrk/configure.ac.wrk        2013-07-12 17:19:34.079965200 +0200
+++ wrk/configure.ac    2013-07-22 16:53:01.630128139 +0200
@@ -414,8 +414,6 @@ AC_CHECK_HEADERS(lpc10.h, ,
      AC_CHECK_LIB(lpc10, create_lpc10_encoder_state,
LPC10_LIBS="$LPC10_LIBS -llpc10", found_liblpc10=no)
  if test "$found_liblpc10" = yes; then
      AC_DEFINE(EXTERNAL_LPC10, 1, [Define if you are using an external
LPC10 library])
-else
-    LIBLPC10_LIBADD=../lpc10/liblpc10.la
  fi
  AM_CONDITIONAL(EXTERNAL_LPC10, test x$found_liblpc10 = xyes)
  AC_SUBST(LIBLPC10_LIBADD)
@@ -603,7 +601,7 @@ AC_SUBST(PLAYRECLINKS)
  AM_CONDITIONAL(STATIC_LIBSOX_ONLY, test "$enable_shared" = "no" -a
"$enable_static" = "yes")

  dnl Generate output files.
-AC_CONFIG_FILES(Makefile src/Makefile libgsm/Makefile lpc10/Makefile
msvc9/Makefile msvc10/Makefile sox.pc)
+AC_CONFIG_FILES(Makefile src/Makefile libgsm/Makefile msvc9/Makefile
msvc10/Makefile sox.pc)
  AC_OUTPUT

  if test "$using_gsm" != "no"; then
diff -up wrk/Makefile.am.wrk wrk/Makefile.am
--- wrk/Makefile.am.wrk 2013-07-12 17:17:11.512971143 +0200
+++ wrk/Makefile.am     2013-07-12 17:17:29.990970373 +0200
@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@

  ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS = -I m4

-SUBDIRS = lpc10 libgsm src
-DIST_SUBDIRS = lpc10 libgsm src msvc9 msvc10
+SUBDIRS = libgsm src
+DIST_SUBDIRS = libgsm src msvc9 msvc10

  RM = rm -f




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Ulrich Klauer-2
Frantisek Kluknavsky wrote:

> rm -rf ./lpc10; configure --without-lpc10
> fails as it tries to create makefile in ./lpc10 directory.
> A look into autotool files hints at lpc10 tightly hardwired (comments
> like "No need to check; LPC10 is always found") I tried to hack it out
> by editing configure.ac, Makefile.am and running autoreconf, despite me
> being autotools newbie [1]. Now it compiles successfully. sox still
> lists lpc and lpc10 as available formats. Symbol lookup error happens
> when trying to use them. This satisfies licensing constraints (I
> believe, IANAL) but is a buggy behavior.

Your patch to the build system should be enough, if you continue to  
call configure with the --without-lpc10 option. This should remove the  
format handler from the build.

Ulrich


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Frantisek Kluknavsky
On 07/23/2013 04:15 AM, Ulrich Klauer wrote:

> Frantisek Kluknavsky wrote:
>
>> rm -rf ./lpc10; configure --without-lpc10
>> fails as it tries to create makefile in ./lpc10 directory.
>> A look into autotool files hints at lpc10 tightly hardwired (comments
>> like "No need to check; LPC10 is always found") I tried to hack it out
>> by editing configure.ac, Makefile.am and running autoreconf, despite me
>> being autotools newbie [1]. Now it compiles successfully. sox still
>> lists lpc and lpc10 as available formats. Symbol lookup error happens
>> when trying to use them. This satisfies licensing constraints (I
>> believe, IANAL) but is a buggy behavior.
>
> Your patch to the build system should be enough, if you continue to
> call configure with the --without-lpc10 option. This should remove the
> format handler from the build.
>
> Ulrich
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
> Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
> Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
> Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Sox-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users
>

Please excuse my poor English if it was not clear, but my point was the
opposite. --without-lpc10 does not seem to do anything. Original
autotools and --without-lpc10 still link the lpc10 library and it still
works the same way as original.
Patched autotools and --without-lpc10 do not link lpc10 library, but the
rest of the code expect it to be present and runtime linker error follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Ulrich Klauer-2
Frantisek Kluknavsky wrote:

>> Your patch to the build system should be enough, if you continue to  
>> call configure with the --without-lpc10 option. This should remove  
>> the format handler from the build.

> --without-lpc10 does not seem to do anything. Original autotools and  
> --without-lpc10 still link the lpc10 library and it still works the  
> same way as original.
> Patched autotools and --without-lpc10 do not link lpc10 library, but  
> the rest of the code expect it to be present and runtime linker  
> error follows.

That's strange, because it works for me. Say I'm in the regular SoX  
source tree and do this:
$ autoreconf -i && mkdir build-without && cd build-without &&  
../configure --without-lpc10 && make -s
Then I get an executable that does not list lpc10 among its supported formats.

Now I try it again with the lpc10 code removed:
$ rm -r lpc10 && patch <your_modifs && autoreconf -i
$ mkdir build-modif && cd build-modif && ../configure --without-lpc10  
&& make -s
The result is an executable that doesn't contain any of the lpc10 code  
(because it's deleted) and doesn't list an lpc10 format driver, either.

Perhaps you forgot to run autoreconf at some point, and configure or  
some makefiles weren't regenerated properly after the modifications? A  
"git clean -x" probably can't hurt, either.


I'm investigating the provenance of the code, by the way. It seems to  
have been a U.S. government work originally, thus in the public domain  
in the U.S., but possibly not in other countries.

Ulrich


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Frantisek Kluknavsky
On 07/24/2013 01:40 AM, Ulrich Klauer wrote:

> Frantisek Kluknavsky wrote:
>
>>> Your patch to the build system should be enough, if you continue to
>>> call configure with the --without-lpc10 option. This should remove
>>> the format handler from the build.
>
>> --without-lpc10 does not seem to do anything. Original autotools and
>> --without-lpc10 still link the lpc10 library and it still works the
>> same way as original.
>> Patched autotools and --without-lpc10 do not link lpc10 library, but
>> the rest of the code expect it to be present and runtime linker
>> error follows.
>
> That's strange, because it works for me. Say I'm in the regular SoX
> source tree and do this:
> $ autoreconf -i && mkdir build-without && cd build-without &&
> ../configure --without-lpc10 && make -s
> Then I get an executable that does not list lpc10 among its supported formats.
>

When I have old sox with lpc10 installed, then newly built sox
--without-lpc10 also contains lpc10. With old sox removed or in mock
chroot => --without-lpc10 works as expected. (Fedora 19)

I do not know if this is expected/correct or not, but I am satisfied,
thank you again.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Ulrich Klauer-2
Frantisek Kluknavsky wrote:

> When I have old sox with lpc10 installed, then newly built sox
> --without-lpc10 also contains lpc10. With old sox removed or in mock
> chroot => --without-lpc10 works as expected. (Fedora 19)
>
> I do not know if this is expected/correct or not

Somewhat. The format handlers are not located in the sox executable,  
but in the library, so it depends on the library used whether lpc10 is  
present or not. When running a not-yet-installed binary, libtool tries  
to make sure via wrapper scripts that the not-yet-installed library is  
loaded, but this may fail if files are moved around.

Ulrich


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Sox-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users