[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] add acceptable licenses to development guidelines
Fri Jul 13 16:23:17 CEST 2007
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 03:56:32PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 01:27:53AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> > Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> writes:
> > > Since this has recently been a hot topic of discussion, I propose we
> > > publish an official list of acceptable licenses, namely LGPL 2.1, GPL
> > > 2, both with an explicit "or any later version" clause or MIT.
> > >
> > > I'm attaching a draft of a patch.
> > >
> > > --- doc/ffmpeg-doc.texi (revision 9603)
> > > +++ doc/ffmpeg-doc.texi (working copy)
> > > @@ -1551,6 +1551,10 @@
> > >
> > > @enumerate
> > > @item
> > > + Contributions should preferrably be licensed LGPL 2.1, including an
> > > + ``or any later version'' clause. GPL 2 including an ``or any later
> > > + version'' clause or MIT license are also acceptable.
> > I'd like to say that LGPL (or MIT) is preferred over GPL. I don't
> > like for FFmpeg to get even more segregated license-wise than it
> > already is. Cleanly separable parts that for whatever reason must use
> > GPL are acceptable, but this should not be a primary choice.
> Updated wording attached.
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
I hate to see young programmers poisoned by the kind of thinking
Ulrich Drepper puts forward since it is simply too narrow -- Roman Shaposhnik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ffmpeg-devel