[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder

Baptiste Coudurier baptiste.coudurier
Wed Mar 25 19:57:08 CET 2009

On 3/25/2009 11:46 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> 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
>> speaking.
> You are not making sense.  Do you mean to imply that those C files are
> not covered by the LGPL?

They are covered by the LGPL according to their own header. What I claim
is that it is _not_ the "sum of all files" like you simply assert.

Some files aren't explicitely part of FFmpeg like vc1dsp_mmx.c and

>> 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
> return?

Well, this is blatantly recurrent in the FFmpeg project unfortunately.

I propose to remedy to this problem (the quietness), by calling a vote
on the licenses we accept as contributions.

Unfortunately you insist on avoiding this, and you prefer acting as a
dictator, it seems.

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 mailing list