[Ffmpeg-devel] overall license review - adding proper license headers
Sun Sep 3 16:53:32 CEST 2006
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 04:13:47PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> libavcodec/armv4l/simple_idct_arm.S is marked as GPL, but the original
> commit message from Alex says:
> Optimized simple idct for arm by Frederic 'dilb' Boulay <...>.
> Currently licensed under the GPLv2, but the author
> allowed to license it under the LGPL, feel free to change
> I think this should simply be switched to LGPL then.
If nobody speaks up I'll make this change.
> libavcodec/liba52/resample_mmx.c is informally marked as "under GPL", I
> suggest adding the official GPL header instead.
> Same for libavutil/softfloat.h but with LGPL.
This is a minor issue, I'll do it since Michael has OKed such a change
on his code in the past.
> libswscale/rgb2rgb.c and libswscale/rgb2rgb_template.c have a note
> palette & yuv & runtime cpu stuff by Michael (michaelni at ...) (under GPL)
> but the rest was apparently written by Nick Kurshev and Alex. I think
> the rest can be assumed to be GPL as well, IMO we should make this
> explicit with the official GPL header.
I'll go ahead with this as well unless somebody objects.
> The files listed below have no license header. I would suggest adding
> the proper/official (L)GPL license header to them to make things crystal
> clear. Some are very short header files, but we have 5 line headers
> that do come with an LGPL header. Some are data tables, but we do have
> data tables that come with an LGPL header.
> I would assume that adding license headers to those files is acceptable
> since they have been implicitly licensed under the (L)GPL all the time.
No opinion on this? Nobody cares? Are there objections or can I go
ahead with this?
More information about the ffmpeg-devel