[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder

[Diego Biurrun]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 02:04:46PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 01:50:02PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:58:33PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:57:05PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:44:04PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:58:22AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 06:53:20PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ---------------------
> > > > > > > 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 ?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > No, I wanted to remove it, but I was overruled.  What was I to do?  The
> > > > > 
> > > > > overruled by whom?
> > > > 
> > > > You, if memory serves me right.
> > > 
> > > he ?!
> > > 
> > > i dont think i did ... at least for 0.5 id suspect i would remember
> > 
> > This was in 2006, not before the 0.5 release:
> > 
> > http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2006-September/014810.html
> 
> i see, still i wouldnt call that overriding your decission, rather writing
> my oppinion ..

Well, maybe I just misinterpreted your words back then.  I don't
remember if I insisted much on the issue.

> Or to make it more clear, if you think that we cannot legally redistribute
> this file then by all means remove it.

I'll wait a few more days for the SoC student to finish his work,
otherwise I will finish it and then nuke that file.  After all this time
a short while will not make a difference.  But yes, we probably should
have removed it a long time ago.

Diego