[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder
Tue Mar 24 21:27:38 CET 2009
On 3/24/2009 12:56 PM, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:05:48AM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>> On 3/24/2009 10:51 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Yes, and I do accept the code as LGPL v2.1 only, now you don't, so let's
>> vote, please ?
> What do you want to vote about? That LGPL v2.1 only code gets build by
> default when the official license says "LGPL v2.1 or later"?
> Or that we should make all of FFmpeg officially LGPL v2.1 only? Then
> it's weird of you to call Diego arrogant, because even if all of the
> currently active developers agree far more provided code under the "or
> later" term, and you are the one second-guessing their opinions.
I'd like to vote on the different licenses we accept.
Besides it seems to me that the COPYING.LGPL is v2.1.
"Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Library
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and
"any later version", you have the option of following the terms and
conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
the Free Software Foundation. If the Library does not specify a
license version number, you may choose any version ever published by
the Free Software Foundation."
"To apply these terms, attach the following notices to the library. It
is safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most
effectively convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have
at least the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is
If you think that it is stated somewhere that the whole library is using
the "or later", can you please point me to it ?
I thought every file has its own license header to explictly mention
to which license their conform to.
Just to be clear I don't claim anything regarding others except the main
goal which is to support as many formats/codecs, which also could be wrong.
I only speak for myself here, regarding license issues, that is why I'd
like a vote so everyone can speak for themselves. I believe you are
wrong when saying that I'm arrogant, and I take it very badly.
So now let's do vote, so we can know who is thinking what, and I'd like
to repeat that I will respect the choice of everybody.
I repeat myself, I will vote for: 'we _accept_ code under "LGPL 2.1
>>> Now there are two more things I would like to say:
>>> If you do not wish to care about licensing issues, fine.
>> I try to care about licensing issues, that is why I raised my concern
>> about the "or later", this is a bit late, right, but I still have tools
>> to protect the future. Late is always better than never.
> Given the language in the LGPL license (allowing to relicense to
> basically any GPL version), I consider the concern about the
> "or later" extremely strange unless you advocate to go with "GPL v2
> Either you trust the FSF, then LGPL "or later" should be good, or you
> don't and then the LGPL should be completely out of question IMO...
Why this ? I can agree to specific license at some time. Then if I want
to relicense it under a new revision of the license, I can, but it still
let me the possibility to _refuse_, this does not invalidate the
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