[FFmpeg-devel] GOM Player on the Blacklisted Projects
Thu Apr 10 02:29:53 CEST 2008
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 07:59:00PM -0400, Francois Oligny-Lemieux wrote:
> Below are the specific questions/answer asked to FSF:
> > Q. What ffmpeg requires is that the new developer mention on which svn
> > revision he branched the original tree (to comply apparently with GPL
> > ?!? is this true?), and secondly, to produce a diff of its change (to
> > comply with 2.a).
I do not remember that anyone of us did require this, are you a native
> (FSF) << No, the requirement is that I (as an example of "any third party"),
> should be able to acquire, from the new developer, the corresponding
> source to build the same binary which the new developer is distributing. >>
> > Q. When a new developer branches a GPL project into a new GPL project.
> > Is he required to list all the date of all changes on every files part
> > of the original GPL code that he himself modified after the branching ?
> (FSF) << Generally speaking, yes, but this should not be done in an overly
> cumbersome way. Note that if it would be too cumbersome to comply with
> this term, then you would lose the freedom to modify the software.
> To be more specific, you need to add a notice such as:
> "This file was modified by YOUR NAME in April 2008" or even more tersely
> just "Copyright 2008 YOUR NAME", stating when you first changed the
> file. Anything else, including the dates of subsequent changes and their
> description might be nice, but is not a requirement of the GPL.
> Section 5(a) of GPLv3 states:
> "The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and
> giving a relevant date."
> The FSF feels that this better reflects the meaning of the language
> GPLv2 as well (one of the reasons GPLv3 is a better license is that many
> of these issues have been cleared up considerably).
> > > Changes made:
> > > Original source:
> > > libavcodec version 51.40.4
> > > libavutil version 49.4.0
> > That's a good start, but not very precise. A sufficiently precise
> > answer would be the Subversion revision number you based your work on.
> > > Changes:
> > > libavcodec ported to win32 dll using MinGW
> > That's also a good start, but not precise enough. A sufficiently
> > precise answer would be a diff file with your changes.
> As a reminder, it's might be ok to ask to produce svn revision in
> order to comply with GPL v2 section 2.b however to ask to produce a
> diff (to someone who has already produced the full source code) and
> ask it in a way that it is to comply with GPL/LGPL is not right.
As i already asked above, are you a native english speaker? I have the
feeling you are not because your interpretation is not what diego wrote.
"That's a good start"
clear i guess
"but not very precise."
also clear i assume
"A sufficiently precise answer ..."
emphasis is on _sufficiently_ is not _necessarily_, i assume you
There is nothing wrong with asking for diff and svn revission, asking is not
the same as requireing
SVN revission and diff greatly simplify our work in judging what has been
changed and if any of that can be merged into ffmpeg svn.
> might be people reading ffmpeg-devel posts in order to educate
> themselves on licensing issues (in order to not be on the blacklisted
> projects) and care should be taken not to bring misconception about
Thats what you get for listening to programmers about legal issues, same
as with listening to butchers about heart surgery. Such people are fools
and cannot be helped.
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
Why not whip the teacher when the pupil misbehaves? -- Diogenes of Sinope
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel