[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] License header consistency

[Diego Biurrun]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 08:48:02PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> 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.

Fine.  Just don't expect me to be happy when you forget again and I have
to repeat myself for the nth time.

> > 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.

WTF was that for now?

> 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.

So you are taking this vote seriously?  I just heard you say:

  And this is a argument i agree with, a non existing license version
  is bad and should be replaced

So what is your vote exactly?

Diego