[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder

Diego Biurrun diego
Wed Mar 25 14:16:57 CET 2009

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 07:26:13PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> On 3/24/2009 6:28 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 05:37:24PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> >> On 3/24/2009 5:05 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If we have one LGPL v2.1 only file in FFmpeg and 500 v2.1+ files, we
> >>> similarly have to obey the licenses of all of them.  Since different
> >>> LGPL versions are incompatible, the only way to satisfy the requirements
> >>> is to use v2.1.  Thus the licensing terms of a single term effectively
> >>> apply to and limit the licensing terms of all of FFmpeg.
> >> I definitely agree with this, but how does this relate to our problem
> >> here ? We are definitely distributing under LGPL v2.1 according to the
> > 
> > But we are distributing the option to upgrade the license to v3 as well
> > at the moment.  If we accept v2.1-only contributions, we cease to give
> > our users this flexibility.  They can no longer use FFmpeg with their
> > LGPL v3 software.
> I believe there is a difference between "copying" and "distributing".

I could guess what you mean, but I'd rather not, so please be more

> As long as we distribute under LGPL v2.1, and that is what we do,
> we can distribute LGPL v2.1 only code.

We are most emphatically *not* distributing under LGPL v2.1.  We have an
explicit "or later" clause in all files.

> Do you mean that a LGPLv3 project cannot "link" against FFmpeg LGPL v2.1
> only ?

No, I mean that they cannot grab FFmpeg and make it part of their
software, which is what most currently do.  Check out the compatibility
matrix, it explains the possible and impossible combinations:


> >> In all ways, I might still try to change this one line of the policy, to
> >> be more flexible regarding license.
> > 
> > And this is the central part of your misunderstanding of the issues at
> > hand.  FFmpeg does *not* become more flexible by accepting LGPL v2.1
> > only code, on the contrary.
> "copying" of this _single_ file stays under the same terms as it _was_.
> "copying" the rest of FFmpeg stays the _same_.

Again, I could try to guess the meaning you attach to the term
"copying", but I'd rather not.

> However, on my side, we have a G722 decoder, on your side we don't.
> You are being stubborn not realizing this.

Nonsense.  I know perfectly well what we have on each side.  You are the
one confused about the consequences of the different licensing schemes.

On your side is nothing right now (G.722 will possibly be resolved
shortly) and a big can of worms in the future as well as reduced license
compatibility, i.e. reduced flexibility.

There will always be something that can be gotten from lowering your
standards.  On the side of less stringent review requirements we would
have everything from the interesting patches page, not just a single
obscure audio decoder.  We could also start accepting nonfree code and
merge AMR-NB/WB.  But we don't do this.  Instead we draw a line in the
sand with our requirements and take whatever crosses that line and
nothing else.


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list