[FFmpeg-devel] [FFmpeg-cvslog] doc: chromaprint

[Gyan Doshi]

On 04-12-2018 07:10 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> 2018-12-04 14:32 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi <gyandoshi at gmail.com>:
>> On 04-12-2018 06:38 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>>> 2018-12-04 13:53 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi <gyandoshi at gmail.com>:
>>>> On 04-12-2018 06:15 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>>>>> 2018-12-04 12:10 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi <git at videolan.org>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> + at section Chromaprint
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +FFmpeg can make use of the Chromaprint library for generating audio
>>>>>> fingerprints.
>>>>>
>>>>>> +It is licensed under LGPL version 2.1.
>>>>>
>>>>> No other library is described like this.
>>>>> Why are you adding legal statements that are unneeded?
>>>>
>>>> I see licensing notes for libxavs2, libdavs2, "OpenCORE, VisualOn, and
>>>> Fraunhofer libraries", x264 & x265.
>>>>
>>>> Is the situation for chromaprint and GME different than for the libs
>>>> above
>>>
>>> Yes, very much so.
>>
>> Please explain.
> 
> The license is only mentioned for projects that are not LGPL-compatible,
> it is unneeded to mention LGPL-compatibility.

OK, so my licensing mentions are superfluous. But where's the risk? The 
FFmpeg project has to stake a position on licensing of all components, 
internal or external, for the sake of configuration. My commits simply 
convey that into the docs - it doesn't create a new judgement or make 
one where none existed.

If you continue to feel strongly about this, I'll remove those 
sentences. But for the sake of a sane and consistent policy, can you 
provide a positive reason why their removal is needed?

Thanks,
Gyan