[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder
Wed Mar 25 19:46:24 CET 2009
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:25:04AM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> 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:
> >>>> On 3/25/2009 9:49 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 08:41:01AM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> >>>>>> 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?
> "This ephemeral thing <I> call "library"".
> It is not the sum of all files, according to this definition,
> ffmpeg.c/ffserver.c/ffplay.c are not part of "the library" strictly
You are not making sense. Do you mean to imply that those C files are
not covered by the LGPL?
> You deliberatly changed the README with authority, and I consider this
> dictatorship until everybody express his opinion.
Notice the lack of a general outcry. Do you really think I could get
away with substantially changing the license and not reap outrage in
More information about the ffmpeg-devel