Pali Rohar (Pali Roh\u00e1r) megv\u00e1ltoztatta a libopenaptx projekt licenceit, amely az aptX (Audio Processing Technology) kodek megval\u00f3s\u00edt\u00e1s\u00e1t k\u00edn\u00e1lja, amelyet a Bluetooth A2DP profilban haszn\u00e1lnak. A csomag tartalmazza a libopenaptx.so k\u00f6nyvt\u00e1rat \u00e9s a hangk\u00f3dol\u00f3 \u00e9s dek\u00f3dol\u00f3 seg\u00e9dprogramokat. A licencek m\u00f3dosultak az LGPLv2.1-r\u0151l GPLv3+-ra, ami azt jelenti, hogy a libopenaptx k\u00f3d GPLv2 alatt kiz\u00e1r\u00f3lagos projekteken val\u00f3 haszn\u00e1lata lehetetlenn\u00e9 v\u00e1lik, hacsak a k\u00f6nyvt\u00e1rral \u00f6sszekapcsolt k\u00f3dot nem enged\u00e9lyezik \u00e1t GPLv3-ra. Ezzel a licenc \u00f6sszhangba ker\u00fcl az Apache 2.0 alatt \u00e1ll\u00f3 projektekkel. <\/p>\n
A licencv\u00e1lt\u00e1s v\u00e1laszul szolg\u00e1lt a Freedesktop projekt fejleszt\u0151ivel \u00e9s a Collabora c\u00e9ggel folytatott konfliktusra, akik Pali szerint megs\u00e9rtett\u00e9k a licencszerz\u0151d\u00e9st, \u00e9s vissza\u00e9ltek a megalkotott magatart\u00e1si k\u00f3dexszel. Pali \u00e1ll\u00edt\u00e1sa szerint a Freedesktop \u00e9s a Collabora fejleszt\u0151i \u00e1thelyezt\u00e9k a k\u00f3dj\u00e1t a PulseAudio-ba, an\u00e9lk\u00fcl hogy megadt\u00e1k volna a szerz\u0151re vonatkoz\u00f3 inform\u00e1ci\u00f3t. <\/p>\n
A libopenaptx szerz\u0151je a decode_buffer f\u00fcggv\u00e9ny\u00e9re hivatkozott bizony\u00edt\u00e9kk\u00e9nt, amelyben m\u00e9g a megjegyz\u00e9sek is megegyeznek, de Pali elmond\u00e1sa szerint a Freedesktop fejleszt\u0151i azt \u00e1ll\u00edtott\u00e1k, hogy ez a saj\u00e1t k\u00f3djuk. A felh\u00e1borod\u00e1sra \u00e9s a licencszerz\u0151d\u00e9s megs\u00e9rt\u00e9s\u00e9nek t\u00e1rgyal\u00e1s\u00e1ra tett k\u00eds\u00e9rletre a Freedesktop fejleszt\u0151i egyszer\u0171en elt\u00e1vol\u00edtott\u00e1k a probl\u00e9m\u00e1r\u00f3l sz\u00f3l\u00f3 \u00fczenetet azzal az indokkal, hogy a vita megs\u00e9rti a projekt \u00e1ltal elhunyt magatart\u00e1si k\u00f3dot. <\/p>\n
A libopenaptx szerz\u0151je, felismerve, hogy nem tudja b\u00e9k\u00e9sen megoldani a probl\u00e9m\u00e1t, a GPLv3 licencre v\u00e1ltoztatta a k\u00f6nyvt\u00e1r\u00e1t, \u00e9s hozz\u00e1f\u0171zte a megjegyz\u00e9st, amely tiltan\u00e1 a k\u00f3d haszn\u00e1lat\u00e1t a Freedesktop projektekben. A licencv\u00e1ltoz\u00e1s a libopenaptx 0.2.1 verzi\u00f3j\u00e1t\u00f3l \u00e9rv\u00e9nyes, amelyet a Freedesktop fejleszt\u0151i m\u00e1r feketelist\u00e1ra tettek, megtiltva a PipeWire k\u00f3dban val\u00f3 haszn\u00e1lat\u00e1t a licenc inkompatibilit\u00e1sa miatt. <\/p>\n
Daniel Stone, a former board member of the X.Org Foundation and one of the key developers of Wayland and PipeWire, who serves as the head of graphics projects at Collabora, stated that changing the license of libopenaptx is legally questionable. Libopenaptx is not a personal development of Pali Rohar, but merely a fork of the FFmpeg project's code, which was originally licensed under LGPLv2.1. Pali Rohar cannot unilaterally change the license of code parts that do not belong to him, especially to impose additional usage restrictions. <\/p>\n
For re-licensing, explicit consent from the original authors of the code on which the fork is based is required. According to the terms of LGPL, upgrading the license without obtaining approval from other authors is only possible up to a newer version of LGPL, that is, to LGPL v3.0, but not to GPLv3, which includes additional restrictions. Pali Rohar responded that he did not impose additional restrictions; the project is now distributed under a clean GPLv3 license, and mentions of Freedesktop and Collabora are merely clarifications in the README file that projects violating GPLv3 cannot use the code. <\/p>\n
Regarding the claim that Freedesktop violated the license for Libopenaptx, Daniel Stone believes it to be inaccurate, as the code was transferred by the developer to the PulseAudio project under the terms of the license agreement, and subsequent attempts by the Libopenaptx developer to revoke the granted rights to the code have no validity. The assertion of a connection between adherence to the code of conduct and license violation, as well as the claim of a license violation by Collabora, which is not connected to the actions that led to the participant's ban, are baseless. <\/p>\n