[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] License header consistency

[Ivan Kalvachev]

On 8/19/08, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:06:26PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 08:48:02PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> [...]
>> > > 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?
>
> You are talking as if you where the boss, i thought i remind you, that you
> are not.
> I can accept some arogance but at some point its too much.
>
>
>>
>> > 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?
>
> my vote is NO, any VALID license that is compatible with the LGPL 2.1
> can be used.
> There is no need to use "ffmpeg" instead of "this library" or to use a
> specific address of the FSF nor is anyone forced to pick LGPL 2.1

I agree with that.

Next thing would be flamewar about what ascii art should be used
around the license. And that's no joke, we got this unified too.



> This vote is NOT about invalid licenses.
> At the time at which i started the vote i was not aware of my mistake of
> commiting a licene header refereing to a non existing license. And had i
> been aware i would not have started the vote.
> Noone would commit a license that does not exist knowingly ...
> Nor would anyone be in favor of that.
> This vote is about nitpicking about minor details that have no technical
> nor legal relevance.

I think that lgpl 2.0 actually exists, but there is some kind of
loophole or other legal problem in it, that's been quickfixed into 2.1