[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] FOSS shame
Mon Nov 23 22:06:45 CET 2009
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:32:56PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:30:25PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 03:15:40PM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 02:30:15AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > >> self-explanatory patch below
> > > >
> > > > do people want me to commit this or not?
> > >
> > > Can you replace the wording so that it clearly specifies "free
> > > software projects", not "freeware projects"?
> > Thats not as easy as you think as id like to keep free sw whos authors
> > pretend they wrote ffmpeg on the list.
> > heres my current try:
> > --- shame (revision 411)
> > +++ shame (working copy)
> > @@ -6,6 +6,9 @@
> > This is a list of projects or companies violating FFmpeg's license. The list
> > is part of an effort to get them to comply with the licensing terms by shaming
> > them in public.
> > +We have consciously chosen not to include <i>not for profit free software projects</i> as we
> > +belive that thouse who give their work to the world for free should not be shamed
> > +on such lists.
> I don't like this. Everybody should respect licenses. There is no
> reason to exclude free sw projects if they turn out to be stubborn
> and unwilling to fix issues they may have.
I dont complain to people because i have some legal basis to do it.
For me there first needs to
be something done by them that i consider seriously wrong.
Taking someone elses hard work and pretending its ones own is seriously
Also taking some one elses hard work and selling it for a profit without
giving that person any share at all is also something i feel isnt right.
And last, obviously improving someones FOSS work and not giving these
improvents to the worlds public under FOSS again is also something i
OTOH, not including the unchanged source of ffmpeg, including a pathset
including the LGPL license text, including the wrong LGPL version, just saying
under LGPL, or linking to some non free codecs alone are just not something
that i mind anyone doing. But if someone is doing something that i
consider seriously wrong then i surely will use all these little things to
I dont like the kind of "zero tolerance" thinking where one puts everyone
on the shame list because they violate the text without violating the
spirit of the text.
Its like these braindead things done in US schools where kids get thrown
out because they bring pocket knive to peel an apple.
If pocket knives are forbidden and i where a teacher and i saw someone
sane peel an apple with one, id look in some other direction.
OTOH if id saw someone id consider unpredictable and violent peeling
an apple with pocket knive id tell him to leave that knive at home.
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
The real ebay dictionary, page 1
"Used only once" - "Some unspecified defect prevented a second use"
"In good condition" - "Can be repaird by experienced expert"
"As is" - "You wouldnt want it even if you were payed for it, if you knew ..."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel