[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder
Tue Mar 24 22:20:41 CET 2009
On 3/24/2009 2:03 PM, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:27:38PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>> On 3/24/2009 12:56 PM, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
>>> 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.
> You did not answer my question. What should happen with that code
> after we accepted it?
It is is accepted and commited in the repository. People are free to and
use it under the LGPL v2.1, like the rest of files under the LGPL v2.1
and the files under the "LGPL v2.1 or later". However if someone wants
to use it under LGPL v3, he cannot, while he can use other files
licensed under "LGPL v2.1 or later"
> Will it be possible to compile a FFmpeg version that can used under
> LGPL v3?
Of course, I don't see how it could not, just this file would be not
> Will it be the default?
I don't know, people have to make a choice.
> I doubt you are fine with "accepting" the code but making sure it
> will never be compiled, that would be rather silly. Before proposing
> a vote you should define what you want to vote about in a way that
> makes sense.
I'm perfectly fine with "accepting" the code. Making sure it will never
be used under LGPL v3 is out of my control, but it can be watched like
we do watch people infringing our license.
I vote for: "we accept code under LGPL 2.1 only", IMHO this makes
perfect sense. This implies that if someone wants to use code under LGPL
v3, he cannot use this code under "LGPL 2.1 only".
>> 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.
> I did _not_ say that you are arrogant. _One_ interpretation of what
> you propose (which as said is rather murky to me) is more intrusive
> than what Diego proposes IMO, and in that case I can see not how the
> way you react to him is justified.
I believe what I propose (accepting code under "LGPL v2.1 only" _and_
accepting code under "LGPL v2.1 or later" is more flexible that only
accepting "LGPL v2.1 or later". I cannot see how it could be less flexible.
>>> 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
>>> only"... 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 previous license.
> Are you sure you read what I wrote? My argument is that "LGPL v2.1
> only" already gives the FSF fully free hand, so I can't see what you
> think you win over "LGPL v2.1 or later"?
I win that I _have the choice_ to relicense allow relicense as LGPL v3,
while on the other end, "LGPL v3 or later" does not allow me this chance.
I don't see how choosing "LGPL v2.1 only" gives FSF fully free hand. I'd
like clarification on this if possible.
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