[FFmpeg-devel] Support master branch of OpenJPEG and Grok J2K codecs

Aaron Boxer boxerab at gmail.com
Mon Apr 4 15:21:09 CEST 2016


Hi Ronald,


On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Aaron Boxer <boxerab at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ronald,
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Aaron Boxer <boxerab at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 7:13 AM, wm4 <nfxjfg at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 17:31:25 -0400
> > > > > Aaron Boxer <boxerab at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here is a small patch to get FFmpeg working with both OpenJPEG
> > master
> > > > and
> > > > > > Grok master, for J2K support.  The comment on the commit has all
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > details; the main change is to remove the OPJ_STATIC flag from
> > > > configure,
> > > > > > so that FFmpeg can be configured with a dynamic build of both
> > codecs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also want to reiterate that because FFmpeg can be distributed
> > under
> > > > GPL
> > > > > > v3, and Grok is licensed under the AGPL, there are no licensing
> > > issues
> > > > > > regarding distributing FFmpeg together with Grok.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Quoting from Wikipedia:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "By contrast, GPLv3 and AGPLv3 each include clauses (in section
> 13
> > of
> > > > > each
> > > > > > license) that together achieve a form of mutual compatibility for
> > the
> > > > two
> > > > > > licenses. These clauses explicitly allow the "conveying
> > > > > > <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/convey#Verb>" of a work formed
> by
> > > > > linking
> > > > > > code licensed under the one license against code licensed under
> the
> > > > other
> > > > > > license,[3]
> > > > > > <
> > > >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License#cite_note-3
> > > > > >
> > > > > > despite the licenses otherwise not allowing relicensing under the
> > > terms
> > > > > of
> > > > > > each other.[4]
> > > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License#cite_note-fsf2-4
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In this way, the copyleft of each license is relaxed to allow
> > > > > distributing
> > > > > > such combinations.[4] "
> > > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License#cite_note-fsf2-4
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, this patch will expand the choice of J2K codecs for all users
> > who
> > > > use
> > > > > > FFmpeg under the GPLv3 license.
> > > > >
> > > > > AGPL is evil. That alone warrants creating a better, actually free
> > > > > version of the decoder.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The only difference between AGPL and GPL is the proviso that users
> > > > connecting to a program using AGPL code
> > > > must be provided with the full source code for the program. This is
> to
> > > > close the loophole in the GPL where
> > > > someone can take free software, put it in the "cloud", and then treat
> > it
> > > as
> > > > closed, non-free software, because they
> > > > do not have to distribute modifications.
> > > >
> > > > Please explain why you think this is a Bad Thing (TM)  ?
> > >
> > >
> > > Because it's a fork, not in the codebase sense but in the licensing
> > sense,
> > > but the effect is the same. We will not be able to combine multiple
> > > branches of the fork because each of them is only compatible in its own
> > > direction - "LGPL code can be merged into AGPL code to create AGPL
> code"
> > > but not the other way around.
> > >
> > > That is fundamentally unfair for those of us that actually _want_ a
> > > LGPLv2.1-or-later codebase. Why would you get all our spoils but not
> the
> > > other way around?
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, I was wrong in my original statements. I've learned a bit more
> about
> > how these
> > licenses work.
> >
> > This is not a fork. FSF allows GPL 3 and AGPL 3 code to be combined.
> > If FFmpeg can be distributed according to GPL 3, then it can included
> AGPL
> > 3 code.
> >
> > Very simple.
>
>
> Oh, no, no, no. Very simple for _you_, with your _simple_ goal of using
> ffmpeg and profiting from it by AGPL'ing your component.
>
> But for me, as a maintainer, can I combine GPLv2 with AGPLv3? For example,
> can I link a GPLv2 application with a AGPLv3 build of ffmpeg and distribute
> the result? Can I link an AGPLv3 build of ffmpeg with a closed-source
> application and distribute the result? Can "big" users of ffmpeg, companies
> that fund out project (through e.g. GSoC), like, say, Google, use AGPLv3
> builds of ffmpeg without a change in their respective requirements for
> complying with the license terms?
>
> Or, to say it differently: who profits from AGPLv3 components? FFmpeg? Or
> just you? I think it's just you, and that's extremely selfish. It's not in
> the best interest of our project to accept AGPLv3 components, it's only in
> your self-interest that it be accepted. And _that_'s a fundamental problem.
>
>
All of your arguments could be applied equally to GPL v3 components. And
yet,
FFmpeg is happy to allow distribution under GPL v3. So, I don't see what
the problem is here.

Yes, Google has a no-AGPL policy, so they won't be able to use it. I am
sure they will
survive somehow without my J2k codec.

Kind Regards,
Aaron



> Ronald
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list