[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] License header consistency

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Mon Aug 18 20:48:02 CEST 2008

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 08:19:11PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 09:59:24PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > 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 had this discussion multiple times and I have said this multiple
> times.  How you can be unaware of this is a complete mystery to me.
> In fact, your memory is failing, you pointed such an issue out yourself:

Iam sorry that i cannot remember some issues i pointed out
in 2006, that is 2 years ago, and i can already tell you with near certainity
that i wont remember in a year from now which version of the LGPL was called
lesser, which library and what the latest street adderess of the FSF is.

> http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-cvslog/2006-October/004072.html
> > > 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?
> You repeatedly committed no license headers or wrong license headers.
> We have had this whole discussion about license headers multiple times
> and I have reiterated my arguments multiple times.

Your arguments weight as much as everyone elses. You arent the boss here
or something. Our vote says 2:2 if i counted correctly. If theres a
majority that prefers developers to check license headers instead of
spending the minute per new file coding, i will follow that.


Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being
governed by those who are dumber. -- Plato 
-------------- 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/20080818/20f7639e/attachment.pgp>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list