[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] FOSS shame
Tue Nov 24 13:02:56 CET 2009
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 08:35:37AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:06:45PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:32:56PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:30:25PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > --- shame (revision 411)
> > > > +++ shame (working copy)
> > > > @@ -6,6 +6,9 @@
> > > > This is a list of projects or companies violating FFmpeg's license. The list
> > > > is part of an effort to get them to comply with the licensing terms by shaming
> > > > them in public.
> > > > +We have consciously chosen not to include <i>not for profit free software projects</i> as we
> > > > +belive that thouse who give their work to the world for free should not be shamed
> > > > +on such lists.
> > >
> > > I don't like this. Everybody should respect licenses. There is no
> > > reason to exclude free sw projects if they turn out to be stubborn
> > > and unwilling to fix issues they may have.
> > [.. rant ..]
> Can you name a single shame entry that is undeserved? I don't think so.
> What exactly is the issue that we are discussing?
If we should say at the top of the shame list that we do not list everyone
who violates our license.
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision
of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet
notwithstanding go out to meet it. -- Thucydides
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel