[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder

Diego Biurrun diego
Tue Mar 24 18:36:45 CET 2009

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 01:40:51PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> 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:
> >>> 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
> > software.

Correction: It becomes incompatible with LGPL v3, not GPL v3.

> Is that true ? How so ?

The license of a combined binary becomes the lowest common denominator,
i.e. that of the most restrictive part.  If one file is LGPL v2.1 and
you combine it with 1000 LGPL v2.1 or later files, the or later clause
is void as long as that one file is used.

May I politely and respectfully suggest that you sit down for a short
moment and read the text of the LGPL 2.1?  During this email exchange
and yesterday's IRC conversation it has become clear that you are not
fully aware of its terms (paragraph 3 seemed to be a surprise to you
for example).  Even the release of GPL v3 had escaped your notice almost
a year after the fact and more than two years after the draft process

Discussing these issues without a full overview over the facts will only
lead to misunderstandings and flames, not to mention conclusions drawn
from incomplete or false assumptions.

Now please take these remarks in the constructive spirit they were
written and consider things with a cool head.


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list