[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder
Tue Mar 24 23:50:22 CET 2009
On 3/24/2009 2:55 PM, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 02:20:41PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>> On 3/24/2009 2:03 PM, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
>>> 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
>> compiled in.
> And how would this "would be not compiled in" happen? Magic?
Makefile ? Don't tell me you don't know how to "not compile" in a file.
> I can't understand why you want to discuss inclusion of such code
> without discussing how users will choose to use it or not.
I believe that if you _copy_ code as stated on the gnu webpage, this is
different, but are you talking about "copying" here or "linking" ?
As long as FFmpeg license ie COPYING.LGPL is v2.1 so license is "LGPL
v2.1" I understand there is no problem to have this code compiled in.
If we want to change COPYING.LGPL to v3, then the situation becomes
>>> Will it be the default?
>> I don't know, people have to make a choice.
> So you are saying you are okay if the policy is "we accept LGPL v2.1
> only code but you may not hook it up into configure or Makefiles?"
Until the COPYING.LGPL is changed, I believe version is LGPL v2.1, I
might wrong though.
Therefore I believe there is no need to add _any_ hook in
> If not I say again: Please tell us what _exactly_ you have in mind.
> E.g. writing "LGPL v2.1 only" in the header and including it only with
> --enable-gpl should be no issue at all, and I am fine with this as a
> "last resort" approach.
>>> 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.
> Not the one interpretion that is "FFmpeg can only be compiled as LGPL
> v2.1 only or GPL without manually hacking the Makefiles", at least not
> for end-users.
This is not about "copying" AFAIU, this is about using the compiled
library and I believe, after reading, that this is a different situation.
"For some licenses, the way in which the combination is made may affect
whether they are compatible?for instance, they may allow linking two
modules together, but not allow merging their code into one module."
I think we need clarification on this.
Is it forbidden to _link_ LGPLv3 code to LGPLv2.1 code ?
> I am since several mails trying to find out if that is what you meant,
> but it seems to me you did not consider that point at all, and in that
> case I repeat again that I can't see how discussing "accepting" code
> without knowing to it will be hooked up into the build system.
In any way, I believe hooking up Makefile and/or configure is ok and I
will volunteer to maintain it if noboby wants. That's fine with me.
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