Re: bug#25356: livestreamer no longer supported

Re: bug#25356: livestreamer no longer supported

[ng0]

dian_cecht@zoho.com writes:

> I just wanted to point out that livestreamer seems to be entirely dead and the
> project has been forked. As of this bugreport, the last change was Febuary 2nd,
> 2016, and while this isn't exactly a long time, considering it no longer works
> properly with Twitch.tv (one of, if not the, largest streaming site atm afaik),
> gives the impression that it is a dead project.
>
> The fork is named streamlink and is located at https://streamlink.github.io/ and
> seems to work well.
>
> I'm not sure who is maintaining the livestreamer package, so I'm simply filing
> this as a bug here and hope everything is forwarded nicely.

Thanks!

Do I read this correctly that they include some kind of
anti-military license in there? I mean I am very much welcoming
such an exclusion but with all the past discussions I had it lead
to the point where it is not compatible with free software.

Do we have to strip OCB from the source?
https://github.com/Legrandin/pycryptodome/blob/master/LICENSE.rst

Pycryptodome is a dependency of streamlink.

-- 
♥Ⓐ  ng0
PGP keys and more: https://n0is.noblogs.org/ http://ng0.chaosnet.org

Re: bug#25356: livestreamer no longer supported

[Leo Famulari]

On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 06:50:14PM +0000, ng0 wrote:
> Do I read this correctly that they include some kind of
> anti-military license in there? I mean I am very much welcoming
> such an exclusion but with all the past discussions I had it lead
> to the point where it is not compatible with free software.
> 
> Do we have to strip OCB from the source?
> https://github.com/Legrandin/pycryptodome/blob/master/LICENSE.rst
> 
> Pycryptodome is a dependency of streamlink.

The question is about the OCB block cipher mode. I think we are able to
distribute implementations of it:

http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/ocb-faq.htm#patent:phil
http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/ocb-faq.htm#license
http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license.htm

Re: bug#25356: livestreamer no longer supported

[ng0]

Leo Famulari transcribed 0.7K bytes:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 06:50:14PM +0000, ng0 wrote:
> > Do I read this correctly that they include some kind of
> > anti-military license in there? I mean I am very much welcoming
> > such an exclusion but with all the past discussions I had it lead
> > to the point where it is not compatible with free software.
> > 
> > Do we have to strip OCB from the source?
> > https://github.com/Legrandin/pycryptodome/blob/master/LICENSE.rst
> > 
> > Pycryptodome is a dependency of streamlink.
> 
> The question is about the OCB block cipher mode. I think we are able to
> distribute implementations of it:
> 
> http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/ocb-faq.htm#patent:phil
> http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/ocb-faq.htm#license
> http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license.htm
> 

With regards to this bug, can someone help to get the facts clear here
so that we know what needs to be done to package streamlink?

Thanks.
-- 
PGP and more: https://people.pragmatique.xyz/ng0/

Re: bug#25356: livestreamer no longer supported

[Ricardo Wurmus]

ng0 <contact.ng0@cryptolab.net> writes:

> Leo Famulari transcribed 0.7K bytes:
>> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 06:50:14PM +0000, ng0 wrote:
>> > Do I read this correctly that they include some kind of
>> > anti-military license in there? I mean I am very much welcoming
>> > such an exclusion but with all the past discussions I had it lead
>> > to the point where it is not compatible with free software.
>> >
>> > Do we have to strip OCB from the source?
>> > https://github.com/Legrandin/pycryptodome/blob/master/LICENSE.rst
>> >
>> > Pycryptodome is a dependency of streamlink.
>>
>> The question is about the OCB block cipher mode. I think we are able to
>> distribute implementations of it:
>>
>> http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/ocb-faq.htm#patent:phil
>> http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/ocb-faq.htm#license
>> http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license.htm
>>
>
> With regards to this bug, can someone help to get the facts clear here
> so that we know what needs to be done to package streamlink?

See also the copyright file that Debian have written:

    http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/p/pycryptodome/pycryptodome_3.4.7-1_copyright

License 1 applies to free software implementations.  That’s already
enough for us.

License 2 applies to non-free implementations.  There the author
distinguishes between non-military and military uses.

License 3 is an explicit grant for OpenSSL.

--
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net