[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Port x264 SSE2 deblocking code to H.264 decoder

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Wed Dec 17 19:49:34 CET 2008

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 06:26:58PM +0000, Loren Merritt wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 05:08:18AM +0000, Loren Merritt wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't plan to relicense to LGPL.
> >> How loud will people complain if I optimize x264's deblocker in a way
> >> that's not drop-in compatible, update ffmpeg c to match, and delete the
> >> existing LGPL mmx versions?
> >
> > Would it be possible to support both the existing LGPL variant and your
> > proposed one at the same time? (via #ifdef GPL)
> It would not be feasible to ifdef all the calling c code.
> In this case the change in behaviour won't be very large, so one could 
> update the LGPL version so that they're interchangeable again. But the 
> question was really about, what if I import a function different enough 
> that I don't volunteer to do that update?

You would have to convince the (majority of) ffmpeg developers that this is
a good idea. Personally i dont really care if our h264 decoder is LGPL or
And even less so if a optional LGPL asm function is replaced by a better
GPL one with changed behavior, which is what was suggested if i did not


Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

it is not once nor twice but times without number that the same ideas make
their appearance in the world. -- Aristotle
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20081217/55b15db6/attachment.pgp>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list