[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] License header consistency

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Sun Aug 17 19:22:50 CEST 2008

On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 07:16:01PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Sunday, 17 August 2008 at 19:08, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > Simple question
> > Do we require all developers to ensure that *GPL license headers are
> > precissely copy & pastes of the one master copy diego picked?
> > 
> > My vote is NO
> > 
> > my argument is that this wastes developer time that can be spend doing
> > something more usefull even if its just little time, but such little
> > times add up, and its not only time to fix the headers but also to diff
> > them against a reference before each check in.
> > Besides its neither a issue of legal correctness if a LGPL variant is
> > used that happens to have a space more or less somewhere, or uses
> > "this library" instead of "ffmpeg" or was what diego prefered 4 years ago.
> Why not simply provide a template.h and template.c with the correct headers
> already present. Or maybe template_gpl.* and template_lgpl.*.

iam all for it if #include "template_lgpl.h" is ok
otherwise no i am not because every random file from current ffmpeg could be
used as well to copy and paste it. And practice tells us this doesnt work
out, its very common that people end up commiting headers that are different
In my case in pca.c it was ffmpegs header just a few years old.


Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue.
-- Xenocrates
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20080817/71e119fd/attachment.pgp>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list