[Ffmpeg-devel] overall license review - adding proper license headers

Diego Biurrun diego
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 mailing list