[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder

Baptiste Coudurier baptiste.coudurier
Tue Mar 24 18:53:40 CET 2009

On 3/24/2009 10:36 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> 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.

I, personally, have no problem with this. I don't like this "or later"
clause. Now, I respect the choice of other developpers, are you ?

> 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
> started.

No, release of GPL v3 did not escape me, considering the amount of noise
if produced.

I missed the LGPL v3 though, and I admit I'm quite puzzled _we_ did not
talk about it here, mainly because I assumed you were a license zealot,
and I would have trusted you to bring the question and the debate here.

Unfortunately you did not. This let me puzzled.

> 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.

As I said on IRC, I would be very pleased if you could educate us well,
and explain us the details, since you seem to be the only one around
really aware of the issues (like you mentioned), and the only one really
understanding them. Would you be kind and generous enough to do this ?

Thanks in advance.

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 mailing list