[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] License header consistency

[Diego Biurrun]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:46:11PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer 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.

I have never pretended any such thing.  You are the one who is on a
rampage here, not me.

> > > 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

You want to be able to pick any version of the LGPL?

> 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.

You are now aware of it, why do you continue?

Diego