[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder

Diego Biurrun diego
Wed Mar 25 18:25:48 CET 2009

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:21:03AM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> On 3/25/2009 10:14 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > 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.
> "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."
> "Source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> making modifications to it.  For a library, complete source code means
> all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated
> interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation
> and installation of the library."

This underscores which point and how?

> >> 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?
> No the fact that what is presented to you is a fixed version license
> plays a very important part of the topic.

Well thank goodness that FFmpeg has neither an instlaller nor displays a
license then.


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list