[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder
Thu Mar 26 20:00:19 CET 2009
On 3/26/2009 1:08 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 04:24:01PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>> On 3/25/2009 3:11 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:57:08AM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier
>>>> On 3/25/2009 11:46 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:25:04AM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier
>>>>>> You deliberatly changed the README with authority, and I
>>>>>> consider this dictatorship until everybody express his
>>>>> 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
>>>> 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.
>>> There is another explanation for the lack of public outcry: You
>>> are alone in your opinion. Reasonable people like Mans, Reimar
>>> and myself have tried to convince you but failed. Sleep over it
>>> and have another look at the situation with a cool head.
>> I'm very well aware that might be case, but you don't seem to be
>> able to realize yourself that it might be the contrary, such
>> self-confidence is frightening me. All I am asking for is people
>> expressing their opinion.
> This self-confidence stems from years of dealing with the subject
> and reading through all the licenses along with their FAQs multiple
> times. I've also talked to many people about the subject, they agree
> with me.
I don't see how this can relate to allowing LGPL 2.1 only contribution.
I doubt you asked many people about the subject, but if you really did,
I still would like people to talk about it.
> I on the other hand am frighten by the fact that reasonable arguments
> by several different people that you know as reasonable and
> knowledgeable fail to leave any impression whatsoever. You carry on
> and stick to your position without a shred of doubt.
I claim that allowing contribution under LGPL 2.1 only is not hurting
FFmpeg in itself. It may hurt projects "copying" FFmpeg, if they use
(L)GPL v3. So far the only proposition you have is to "reject"
contributions not having the "or later" case, which is hurting FFmpeg
project, without any positive point, and that's a fact.
So yes, I will stay in my position. However I don't claim that other
people think like me on this matter. That's why I'd like to hear their
> People have already expressed their opinion, your interpretation of
> the (L)GPL is not shared by them. I can very well understand that
> they have no interest in being drawn into a flamewar with you when
> you have already proven that you will disregard any argument anyway.
The main subject is not about LGPL interpretation. It is wether or not
FFmpeg project allows LGPL v2.1 only contributions.
I don't understand why they would not have interest in being involved in
a subject that can add features to FFmpeg, and not potentially remove
any _yet_. If FFmpeg wants to integrate (L)GPLv3 only code in the
future, it will have to make a decision, if this ever happens.
> How many opinions do you need to see expressed until you will say
> that "ummm, yes, maybe I did misinterpret things"? 10? 100?
Again you are trying to fool people about the possible
"misinterpretation", which is not the subject.
>> Besides, what is also really frightening me, is that I already
>> heard these words or these sentences from a real life dictator.
> Realize that the people around you are not poor blinded victims in
> the stranglehold of an evil dictator. They have their opinions and
> are not shy to express it. As if FFmpeg devs had ever been shy of
> speaking up and even flaming..
No they aren't and I never implied so, please don't put words in my mouth.
It is blantantly recurrent and known that in the FFmpeg project some
people don't participate in flames but that does not mean at all that
they do not agree with any side of it. In fact, like you just said
earlier, they talk in private.
>> However, I could comment that Reimar and you are biased by Mplayer
>> "copying" FFmpeg code therefore being in first line if license can
>> be LGPLv2.1 only, while it IMHO does not hurt FFmpeg itself, and
>> still IMHO protects it more.
> You are still blissfully ignorant of paragraph 3 of the LGPL v2.1.
Well this clause again about any other later version is also really
annoying me, and should really annoy people choosing LGPL v2.1
only, but, yes it seems you are right and that it doesn't change
anything to projects using GPL.
So it seems that at the end, this would be one more argument in favor of
accepting LGPL v2.1 only contributions.
> Also that you claim bias, dictatorial behavior and whatnot when you
> run out of arguments is not strengthening your position.
"There is another explanation for the lack of public outcry: You are
alone in your opinion. Reasonable people like Mans, Reimar and myself
have tried to convince you but failed. Sleep over it and have another
look at the situation with a cool head."
What does this mean ?
- Majority of people don't speak -> they don't agree with me (did you
ever hear about silent majority ?)
- Reasonable people "like" ... -> do you imply that only reasonable
people talked ? I think many reasonable people did not talk yet, also I
could comment that being reasonable is subjective, and it may not appear
to everybody that these people are reasonable, even if it's not what I
No, I certainly don't run out of arguments.
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