[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder

Diego Biurrun diego
Fri Mar 27 01:17:43 CET 2009

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 04:39:15PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:00:19PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> > You are changing the topic.  There are two issues being discussed here:
> > 
> > 1) Whether or not FFmpeg should accept LGPL v2.1 only contributions.
> > 2) That FFmpeg's license is in fact LGPL v2.1+ / GPL v2+ right
> >    now as I just clarified in the LICENSE file.
> Well, about 2) I already expressed concerns about 2 files in the FFmpeg
> codebase namely vc1dsp_mmx.c and fdctref.c, which are not _explictely_
> part of FFmpeg, since it is not mentioned in their header, and are not
> under LGPL v2.1+ explictely since it is not mentioned in their header
> either.
> I still don't know if we need to _explicitely_ relicense them to LGPL
> v2.1+, if we want to _distribute_ FFmpeg as a "whole" as LGPL v2.1+.
> The fact that we are _allowed_ doesn't tell if we _need_ to or not.

I have already replied to this before.  I'm a glutton for punishment,
once more:

libavcodec/fdctref.c is only used in a small test program.  It's nonfree
anyway, but will hopefully be replaced soon.

libavcodec/x86/vc1dsp_mmx.c is MIT-licensed.  It is not the only file
under such licensing terms.  Such permissively-licensed files are
compatible with all present and future versions of the (L)GPL.  There is
no need to relicense them.

In combination, the union of all terms apply.  Since the requirements in
the (L)GPL are a superset of those in MIT, the (L)GPL terms apply.


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list