[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder
Mon Mar 23 21:40:51 CET 2009
On 3/23/2009 12:11 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:01:42PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>> On 3/23/2009 11:14 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:07:19AM -0700, Kenan Gillet wrote:
>>>> On Mar 23, 2009, at 11:00 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:22:06AM -0700, Kenan Gillet wrote:
>>>>>> On a side note, I think the G722 patch  should be removed or at
>>>>>> a warning about its incompatible license should be added in the wiki.
>>>>>> Will gladly do it if a consensus is reached.
>>>>> You don't have a wiki account? Send me an email with the login name
>>>>> you want...
>>>> I do, just wanted to ask what would be the best course of action.
>>> Add a note about the license incompatibility of course. So that the
>>> next person does not stumble into the same trap you fell into.
>> I'm prefectly fine in integrating a patch using LGPL v2.1 only.
> It's nice that you are fine with it, but changing FFmpeg's license is
> not acceptable. If just one file is LGPL v2.1 only, all of FFmpeg
> reverts to LGPL v2.1 only and becomes incompatible with (L)GPL v3
Is that true ? How so ?
> It's also clearly stated in point 1 of our development policy:
I don't remember agreeing with this, did I ?
For me every contribution is nice, LGPL 2.1 is prefered, but I'm ok
with MIT/BSD/Public Domain.
I'm also more inclined to accept 2.1 than any "or later" clause.
I believe it is _suicidal_ to accept "or later" btw, who knows what evil
forces could take over. This has raise many points with the GPL v3.
Baptiste COUDURIER GnuPG Key Id: 0x5C1ABAAA
Key fingerprint 8D77134D20CC9220201FC5DB0AC9325C5C1ABAAA
checking for life_signs in -lkenny... no
FFmpeg maintainer http://www.ffmpeg.org
More information about the ffmpeg-devel