Il giorno sab, 07/11/2015 alle 09.22 -0700, Bearcat M. Şándor ha scritto: inspired by this thread i was looking into doing the same, but thus far the only thing i can find is a live ebuild: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=561582 peace, w

Am 07.11.2015 um 17:27 schrieb Wayne DePrince Jr.: If it's any help, for Arch there is an AUR package for compiling Carla from its Git repo: https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=carla-git The PKGBUILD file shows the (numerous) dependencies and the compilation commands used. Chris

On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 09:34:04 -0800 (PST), Len Ovens wrote: Hi Len, I guess you're thinking about the GPL and that nobody maintains a package for official Debian/Ubuntu repositories. Regarding Caral's dependencies there might be concerns regarding Steinberg, but I don't understand why there should be an issue regarding Linuxsampler. Actually Linuxsampler is GPLed, https://www.linuxsampler.org/downloads.html#exception, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ModifyGPL, so IIUC it doesn't cause an issue, since as long as the name still remains GPL, the license still remains GPL. Regards, Ralf

On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 20:16:40 +0100, Christopher Arndt wrote: To cut a long story short, Steinberg isn't GNU. Steinberg might give permission to use their headers, but distros that follow a strict GNU policy will not include it to official repositories. You can't compare Arch user repository PKGBUILDs that don't provide binaries, at best they download a binary from upstream, with official repositories from a GNU/Linux distro, that at best has got a non-free repository, https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html. It's just strange that there still is an issue with Linuxsampler's GPL. However, there are no issues with jack rack, but since carla is a "eierlegende Wollmilchsau" (there is no good translation for this idiom, it means "a pig that gives eggs, wool and milk") carla on some distros might not give wool and/or milk and/or eggs. We don't need to discuss the GPL and GNU now, we just should be aware that carla from official distro repositories might be provided in versions with different optional features or not at all. Users interested in GNU politics and GNU/Linux policy distros should not get used too much to all available options. The approach to do several things, instead of one thing, already is disputed, an exception are DAWs, but for a plugin host, let alone non-audio user space, it has several drawbacks, even if there would be no issues regarding licenses. Regards, Ralf

On Sun, 8 Nov 2015, Hermann Meyer wrote: So if they were to call it "the licence" and use gpl like language it would be a fresh licence with no "additions". Then it would be ok? -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net

On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 03:55:38 +0100, Hermann Meyer wrote: "Packages must be placed in non-free, if they are not compliant with the DFSG", see: On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 21:25:42 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: It's politic, GNU has got a spirit and Debian's Linux port is hardcore GNU/Linux, but e.g. Ubuntu PPAs and the Arch user repository are not that tricky regarding the policy. While the Arch user repository usually doesn't cause issues for Arch users, since Arch is not user-friendly, but user-centric, an Ubuntu PPA could cause serious issues for the averaged Ubuntu user, who expects a user-friendly approach. Regards, Ralf

Hi Hermann, On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 07:24:00 +0100, Hermann Meyer wrote: Several LAU subscribers are aware of it, but it's still politics regarding an interpretation of Debian's strict GNU policy, that applies double standards. Non-free provides e.g. the proprietary NVIDIA driver, this is absolutely ok. Assumed Linuxsampler's upstream would rename the license, and Len asked about this, then it should be possible to provide it by non-free too. DFSG isn't required for non-free. However, much more important is that e.g. Aeolus is available by the official repositories, but Aeolus comes with the exception that forks are unwanted http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.audio.devel/29966 you most likely remember the complete discussion, as Debian maintainers do too ;). IOW it depends to the Debian maintainers arbitrary political decision and not to a Debian policy. It's absolutely ok (by Debian's policy and for me too) that Debian provides Aeolus, but there's no valid reason to not provide Linuxsampler, since Linuxsampler is GPLed too, the GPL is valid, just the exception is null and void. So were exactly do you see a clear-cut course by the Debian maintainers? A rhetorical question ;), IMO this discussion is much too off-topic. Back to the topic, Carla e.g. from an Ubuntu PPA or from the Arch user repository can be provided with all features, assumed Carla should be provided by official Debian/Ubuntu repositories, it will be released without all features. This does cause problems for many less experienced Linux users, so users writing e.g. Ubuntu help pages and Wikis, requires to write howtos for those special distro versions. I'm an Arch Linux user, but I like to help Linux newcomers, so I prefer to provide Ubuntu and Ubuntu Studio support for this purpose. It would be nice to make things not that complicated. Other than you and me, a lot of computer users aren't geeks interested in computer politics. It's already hard for them to understand the meaning of LTS, the difference between an Ubuntu flavour and an Ubuntu derivative and how secure or insecure the usage of PPAs is, since terms like "dependency" or "soname" require a level of understanding, they don't want to have to use a user-friendly Linux distro. Last but not least, fortunately jack rack still is available for the current release of Ubuntu :). Regards, Ralf

Hi Hermann, I disagree. On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 10:55:23 +0100, Hermann Meyer wrote: We seem to have different understandings of the word "cooperation", by my definition "either-or" doesn't fit the semantics of "cooperation". The GPL is lawfully accepted, OTOH the laws of our societies are flexible, a law is below the constitution, so jurisdiction has got much margin regarding horse-sense, proportionality. A few Linux distros, one of them is seemingly Debian, follow an orthodox worldview, there seems to be the idea of a GPL that expect strict laws, perhaps comparable to the sharia, but usually the GPL is within western societies laws and our laws aren't that "either-or", "black or white". If forks are unwanted, then upstream of GPLed software is able to terminate forks by pressure and nobody from the Debian maintainers considers this as a violation of the GPL by upstream. Here Debian is flexible, were already something that doesn't fit the spirit of GNU happened, but for Linuxsampler a real issue comparable to the Aeolus issue never happened, there are just a few words. The message is, that for GNU/Linux Debian not the deeds are relevant, the words are relevant. To name it GPL, but don't accept the GPL is ok, but to name it GPL with an exception, while no issue regarding a deed ever happened is unacceptable. For my horse-sense this is ridiculous. Regards, Ralf

On Sat, 7 Nov 2015, Ralf Mardorf wrote: Not trying to pass judgement myself, only mentioning that the building of Carla is very versatile. I can't speak what should or should not be included in package archives only that I understand this is a reality a packager must face. This is perhaps one of the good defences for installing a basic system and building whatever is not included. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net