[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder

Diego Biurrun diego
Wed Mar 25 18:14:52 CET 2009

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:06:16AM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> 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
> license.

This is neither an answer to my question nor can I make heads or tails
of it.

> 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.

How is the acceptance of licenses during installation in any way related
to the topic at hand?


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list