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

Guillaume Poirier gpoirier
Wed Sep 6 11:55:02 CEST 2006

Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:29:46AM +0200, Guillaume POIRIER wrote:
>>On 9/6/06, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
>>>So what exactly is the license if libavcodec/i386/idct_mmx.c is part of
>>>FFmpeg?  GPL?  LGPL?  LGPL with an extra clause?  Which clause exactly?
>>>I haven't seen Michel make a crystal-clear statement yet and the note we
>>>currently have is so misleading to be downright wrong.
>>>This has practical implications as well.  Is another option for
>>>configure needed?  --enable-gpl and --enable-lgpl-with-strings-attached?
>>I'd say that since we don't have explicity banner that state the
>>licence, everything that needed --enable-gpl to get compiled are GPL.
>>That has the nice advantage to be very straightforward, and to LGPL a
>>whole bunch of code.
> I don't get what you are trying to say here...

Ahem. I'll try to break down my point in more understandable steps:
(let me say that I've not followed the discution at all as I find
licences discution very boring)

FFmpeg is an LGPL project, but uses some imported non-lgpl code
everything that gets compiled without the need for --enable-gpl is
implicitely LGPL.

That thakes care of the case of idct_mmx.c for example.

Now, maybe you'd like to LPGL more code which cases are more
problematic, but I guess it's a different story...


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list