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

Robert Swain robert.swain
Wed Dec 17 20:52:08 CET 2008

2008/12/17 Robert Swain <robert.swain at gmail.com>:
> 2008/12/17 Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at>:
>> 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
>> GPL.
>> 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
>> misunderstand.
> Personally, I'm far more concerned about decoder speed than GPL vs LGPL.

...as long as it is functional under LGPL.


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list