[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder
Fri Mar 27 02:53:20 CET 2009
Diego Biurrun wrote:
> 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
>> 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.
Quoting you in 2006 in:
"[Ffmpeg-devel] overall license review - adding proper license headers
Diego Biurrun diego at biurrun.de
Sun Sep 3 16:18:30 CEST 2006
> its only a tiny part of the reference code and its only used for
> testing and comparing our (i)dcts against it furthermore it is as
> said not part of compiled ffmpeg libavcodec or libavformat IMO thats
> fair use, but iam not against it if someone wants to rewrite it, its
> very little work, just a schoolbook (i)dct
I disagree, there is no way around the "all rights reserved". We cannot
distribute it in tarballs.
Any volunteers to rewrite it? Is dct-test still useful?"
However, we distributed it within FFmpeg 0.5 tarball.
Did you change your mind ?
> 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
Ok, shouldn't we clarify that these files are licensed under MIT ?
Like I already suggested it would be nice to reference these files,
under a different license, somewhere in svn.
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