[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder

Måns Rullgård mans
Wed Mar 25 19:42:06 CET 2009

Baptiste Coudurier <baptiste.coudurier at gmail.com> writes:

> On 3/25/2009 10:25 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> 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:
>>>>> 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.
> However, in our case, the COPYING.LGPL is the reference, and is still
> using a fixed version.

The contents of the COPYING.LGPL file alone is completely irrelevant
to the licensing terms of any particular source file.  It only applies
because the source file explicitly say so in their header.  The header
used in most of the FFmpeg source files states that *the file it is
part of* is distributed under the terms of COPYING.LGPL or a later
version of the LGPL.  The situation is entirely equivalent to pasting
COPYING.LGPL into all the files, then deleting COPYING.LGPL.  The
reason we keep COPYING.LGPL the way we do is purely to save some space
in the source files.

> You deliberatly changed the README with authority, and I consider
> this dictatorship until everybody express his opinion.

The changed README file merely states what all the individual source
files already did.  Diego did not change any licensing terms.

M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list