[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] License header consistency

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Sun Aug 17 21:59:24 CEST 2008

On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 09:03:55PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > 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.
> The header you just picked from somewhere reads
>   * This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>   * modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
>   * License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
>   * version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> There is no version of this license under that name.  

And this is a argument i agree with, a non existing license version is bad
and should be replaced but i was not aware of this and i think iam not
the only one. How should i guess from a "sigh" that the license header
refers to a non existing license instead of just minor typogrphic
things you dislike ?

> We have discussed
> this multiple times already.  You choose to ignore the argument again
> and again.

I repeatly ignored "sigh" and failed to guess what you meant?


Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
-- Diogenes of Sinope
-------------- 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/20080817/938020bc/attachment.pgp>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list