[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] License header consistency
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
Mon Aug 18 16:55:10 CEST 2008
On Monday, 18 August 2008 at 16:37, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 04:33:58PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > On Monday, 18 August 2008 at 16:23, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 03:02:37PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> > > > Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > This check would also exclude the possibility of using more permissive
> > > > > licenses like BSD, MIT, public code - e.g. vc1dsp_mmc.c
> > > >
> > > > Good point. We could have a list of allowed licenses, of course.
> > >
> > > I think a better, and easier to maintain approch would be to grep for
> > > the problematic parts in head -n 123 file
> > > that is "this library" "<non existent version>" "<old address>"
> > Whitelist approach is better in this case IMHO, i.e. grep for
> > "part of FFmpeg" "GPL version 2|LGPL version 2.1" "current address"
> > and fail if no match.
> that approch fails for:
> BSD license
> MIT license
> public domain
> mixtures of "part of FFmpeg" and "this library"
I only gave an example for GPL/LGPL. This can be easily extended
to include relevant parts from BSD/MIT/what have you.
MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu | Livna http://rpm.livna.org
There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and
oppression to develop psychic muscles.
-- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan
More information about the ffmpeg-devel