[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder

Baptiste Coudurier baptiste.coudurier
Wed Mar 25 17:58:50 CET 2009

On 3/25/2009 9:43 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 09:25:48AM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>> On 3/25/2009 9:15 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 08:43:05AM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/2009 6:35 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 03:50:22PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/24/2009 2:55 PM, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> You are wrong.
>>>> Prove this.
>>> Here is our standard license header for your consumption, read it:
>>> /*
>>>  * This file is part of FFmpeg.
>>>  *
>>>  * FFmpeg is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>>>  * modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
>>>  * License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
>>>  * version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
>>>  *
>>>  * FFmpeg is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>>>  * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>>>  * Lesser General Public License for more details.
>>>  *
>>>  * You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
>>>  * License along with FFmpeg; if not, write to the Free Software
>>>  * Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
>>>  */
>> This is the header of _one_ file. the LGPL refers to the "library"
>> "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."
>> AFAIK FFmpeg is _not_ a library, btw thanks for making me reading what
>> matters, to be able to realize that even you, do not have this
>> "knowledge" you claim.
> You have not read in sufficient detail.  The definition of the term
> "library" in the license is:
>     The "Library", below, refers to any such software library or work
>   which has been distributed under these terms.
> FFmpeg consists of several libraries and programs and forms a work that
> is distributed under the terms of the LGPL.
> Maybe you could be kind enough to explain how *any* program can be
> distributed as LGPL v2.1+ in your view.  It seems to be plain
> impossible from what you write.

"A "library" means a collection of software functions and/or data
prepared so as to be conveniently linked with application programs
(which use some of those functions and data) to form executables."

It has been controversial in the past that ffmpeg.c/ffplay.c/ffserver.c
have the LGPL license header because it does not make an obvious sense.

However someone could copy ffmpeg.c under the terms of LGPL and make it
a library.

But "as is" ffmpeg.c without modifications cannot be considered a "Library"

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 mailing list