[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder

[Kenan Gillet]

Hi,
On Mar 24, 2009, at 3:29 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:55:07AM +0000, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>> Diego Biurrun <diego <at> biurrun.de> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:06:46AM +0000, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>>>> Kenan Gillet <kenan.gillet <at> gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Apparently, this header can also be found here:
>>>>> http://www.soft-switch.org/spandsp-doc/non-gpl-bits_2g722_8h-source.html
>>>>
>>>> And is this version good enough for us?
>>
>> I'd like to repeat the question: Is the version for which Steve  
>> Underwood's
>> changes are under public domain usable or not?
>
> It's not the version Kenan's patch was based on.

further digging lead to this package:
http://soft-switch.org/downloads/non-gpl-bits.tgz
which match the license at
http://www.soft-switch.org/spandsp-doc/non-gpl-bits_2g722_8h-source.html

and Chas Williams patch, which my patch is based on, is matching  
perfectly: code + license

Furthermore, Steve Underwood got back to me today telling me that he  
had a version
with no license restrictions. I am trying to confirm with him which  
version it is and will get back to you.


>
>>>> Or does it contain so many problems that it would be easier to  
>>>> start
>>>> from scratch with the decoder?
>>>
>>> I would suggest making it a SoC project.  This piece of code is a  
>>> huge
>>> can of worms.
>>
>> I don't think so.
>
> Then go ahead and clear up the situation.  At this point I think
> everybody is completely lost.  There are at least four versions of  
> this
> code, each under a different license, only one of which is acceptable.
>
> Find out which is derived from which and create an overview of the
> licensing situation.

If that scenario proves correct, we would have
CMU orginal work--> unrestricted license
Steve Underwood work --> unrestricted licence
Chas Williams --> no restrictions
mine --> LGPL v2.1 or later

Kenan