[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder

[Baptiste Coudurier]

On 3/25/2009 9:43 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 09:25:48AM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>> On 3/25/2009 9:15 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 08:43:05AM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/2009 6:35 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 03:50:22PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/24/2009 2:55 PM, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
>>>>>>> So you are saying you are okay if the policy is "we accept LGPL v2.1
>>>>>>> only code but you may not hook it up into configure or Makefiles?"
>>>>>> Until the COPYING.LGPL is changed, I believe version is LGPL v2.1, I
>>>>>> might wrong though.
>>>>> You are wrong.
>>>> Prove this.
>>> Here is our standard license header for your consumption, read it:
>>>
>>> /*
>>>  * This file is part of FFmpeg.
>>>  *
>>>  * FFmpeg 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 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
>>>  *
>>>  * FFmpeg is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>>>  * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>>>  * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
>>>  * Lesser General Public License for more details.
>>>  *
>>>  * You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
>>>  * License along with FFmpeg; if not, write to the Free Software
>>>  * Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
>>>  */
>> This is the header of _one_ file. the LGPL refers to the "library"
>>
>> "Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the Library
>> specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and
>> "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and
>> conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
>> the Free Software Foundation.  If the Library does not specify a
>> license version number, you may choose any version ever published by
>> the Free Software Foundation."
>>
>> AFAIK FFmpeg is _not_ a library, btw thanks for making me reading what
>> matters, to be able to realize that even you, do not have this
>> "knowledge" you claim.
> 
> You have not read in sufficient detail.  The definition of the term
> "library" in the license is:
> 
>     The "Library", below, refers to any such software library or work
>   which has been distributed under these terms.
> 
> FFmpeg consists of several libraries and programs and forms a work that
> is distributed under the terms of the LGPL.
> 
>
> Maybe you could be kind enough to explain how *any* program can be
> distributed as LGPL v2.1+ in your view.  It seems to be plain
> impossible from what you write.

Well:
"A "library" means a collection of software functions and/or data
prepared so as to be conveniently linked with application programs
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(which use some of those functions and data) to form executables."

It has been controversial in the past that ffmpeg.c/ffplay.c/ffserver.c
have the LGPL license header because it does not make an obvious sense.

However someone could copy ffmpeg.c under the terms of LGPL and make it
a library.

But "as is" ffmpeg.c without modifications cannot be considered a "Library"

-- 
Baptiste COUDURIER                              GnuPG Key Id: 0x5C1ABAAA
Key fingerprint                 8D77134D20CC9220201FC5DB0AC9325C5C1ABAAA
checking for life_signs in -lkenny... no
FFmpeg maintainer                                  http://www.ffmpeg.org