[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] faad2 version 2.5 support, second try

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Mon Jan 14 12:27:44 CET 2008

On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 12:07:29PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Monday, 14 January 2008 at 04:34, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 06:39:57PM +0200, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
> [...]
> > > Two months ago I heard that the text is changed and today I did
> > > download libfaad 2.6.1 and checked it myselfs. (CVS says the change is
> > > done at revision 1.10, Thu Nov 1 12:33:29 2007 UTC )
> > > The text now says:
> > > 
> > > ** The "appropriate copyright message" mentioned in section 2c of the GPLv2
> > > ** must read: "Code from FAAD2 is copyright (c) Nero AG, www.nero.com"
> > > 
> > > I think this text looks quite GPL complaint. At least I can't find
> > > reason why it wouldn't be.
> > > 
> > > I was wondering if we can now reconsider the original patch from this thread.
> > 
> > Is there some statement from the FSF about this? If no id say we should wait.
> Or we could ask.

you or diego could, i dont really care about faad, for me its a simple thing,
they have wasted alot of time of many open source people with their idiotic
license games. And iam not going to waste any more of mine

> > The statement above defines what appropriate is which is an additional
> > restriction if the legal meaning of appropriate is "wider" than this.
> Wider than what?

wider than the license text of FAAD2

assume the law would say that a reference to a README is appropriate copyright
statement for used libs then the text of the FAAD2 license is an additional

> > Also an appropriate copyright statement for ffmpeg is certainly not
> > "Code from FAAD2 is copyright (c) Nero AG, www.nero.com", that might be
> > part of it but its not alone on its own appropriate
> Why do you say it is not appropriate? What would you consider appropriate?

currently ffmpeg prints
FFmpeg version SVN-r11520, Copyright (c) 2000-2008 Fabrice Bellard, et al.

following would not be appropriate:
FFmpeg version SVN-r11520, Code from FAAD2 is copyright (c) Nero AG, www.nero.com

but that is what the license requires if taken litterally IMHO/IANAL

something like:
FFmpeg version SVN-r11520, Copyright (c) 2000-2008 Fabrice Bellard, et al.
Code from FAAD2 is copyright (c) Nero AG, www.nero.com
Code from xvid is ...
Code from x264 is ...
Code from lame is
Code from zlib is
... libc 

would be a fairer variant but here the appropriate copyright string has many
lines and thus is definitly not equal to
"Code from FAAD2 is copyright (c) Nero AG, www.nero.com" aka its not wat they
ask for if taken litterally IMHO

Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Frequently ignored awnser#1 FFmpeg bugs should be sent to our bugtracker, user
questions for the command line tools ffmpeg, ffplay, ... as well as questions
about how to use libav* should be sent to the ffmpeg-user mailinglist.
-------------- 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/20080114/e540e38d/attachment.pgp>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list