[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder

John Lange john
Tue Mar 24 22:34:35 CET 2009

On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 14:14 -0700, Kenan Gillet wrote:
> On Mar 24, 2009, at 2:08 PM, John Lange wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 22:03 +0100, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> >> 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"?
> >
> > Sorry to jump into a thread but this point has confused me from the
> > start. Can you please quote directly which part of LGPL v2.1 says  
> > this?
> you can relicense LGPL v2.1 to Any GPL v2 or later:
> 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public  
> License
> instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do this,  
> you must alter
> all the notices that refer to this License, so that they refer to the  
> ordinary GNU
> General Public License, version 2, instead of to this License.
> (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Public  
> License
>   has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if you wish.)
> Do not make any other change in these notices.

Thank you. But just to point out the obvious, that isn't nearly the same
thing as "LGPL v2.1 or later" though arguable it does give the FSF a
"free hand" since licensing "LGPL v2.1" is in effect saying:

LGPL v2.1 or GPL v2.x or GPL v3.x or GPL v4.x etc. and since some of
those haven't been written yet it could be anything.

That seems really open-ended. GPL v5 could be a BSD style license for
all we know? FSF could loose a lawsuit to the BSA and have all it's
assets turned over to them...

Anyhow, at the present time I have no code in this project so sorry for
jumping in.

John Lange

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list