[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder

Baptiste Coudurier baptiste.coudurier
Wed Mar 25 18:06:16 CET 2009

On 3/25/2009 9:49 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 08:41:01AM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>> On 3/25/2009 6:16 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 07:26:13PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>>>> 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.
>> In all files, however the LGPL is pretty strict, mentioning the
>> "library", not "file" contained in the library.
> What is this ephemeral thing you call "library" if it is not the sum of
> all files then?  The program's soul?

Some files in FFmpeg have their own license, it would be good to exactly
mention which files are under which license _originally_.
After this you might decide to _distribute_ the libraries under another

But IMHO when you install a program using the GPL or LGPL, you accept a
specific version of the license, which is displayed, and not the "or
later" clause unless specified by other means.

>>>> 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. 
>> No, you are wrong, this is what _mplayer_ do. I know people use to tell
>> this in the past, to statically use on revision in their project, and
>> this was a mistake.
> It's not only MPlayer and it's completely irrelevant to this discussion.
> We may approve or disapprove of the things people do, but they still
> have a right to do so.

No it's not irrelevant, it seems you are biaised. Sure they have a right
according to the license, and that's why you don't want the LGPLv2.1
only, while for the FFmpeg project itself it causes no real harm.

>> Can you please stop talking about technical reason ?
> Sure, let's leave the arguments aside and just flame for the heck of it
> :)

You are using the technical argument by which we refuse contribution.
This is completely different than your "license" issue.

So please top using this "technical" argument.

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