[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder
Wed Mar 25 19:52:02 CET 2009
On 3/25/2009 11:42 AM, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> 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.
Yes, that is true, however I believe this is different when distributing.
>> 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.
I don't think this is entirely true, some code is not under LGPL, some
is under MIT and has not been relicensed according to the header, even
more some is under weird license such as fdctref.c, which btw is bundled
in the 0.5 release tarball.
And Diego says users do not take care of licenses ?
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