[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder

[Diego Biurrun]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:53:40AM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> 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 ?

I can only repeat what I said earlier:

  I have the utmost respect for other people's licensing choices.  It is
  their choice alone under what terms they release their code.  However,
  it is our choice alone to accept those terms or not.

> > 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.

I am not a license zealot, quite the contrary.  I have never campaigned
for use of one specific license type.  You fit the term "license zealot"
much better than I do with your blanket dismissal of the "or later"
clause.

I am in fact neutral about the "or later" clause.

What I am not neutral about is license complication.  I want the
licensing situation to be as clear as possible and I put some effort
into that similar to the people who worked on LGPLing the
non-optimization parts of FFmpeg.

This is in part a reaction to talking with distributors and a general
uneasiness about the legal situation surrounding FFmpeg.  It's difficult
enough as it is, we should not try to add more problems of our own
making.

> > 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 ?

I am not the only one.  I will gladly attempt to explain whatever you
feel needs clarification.  There is no way, however, to save you from
reading the license text yourself at least once.

Diego