[FFmpeg-devel] Support master branch of OpenJPEG and Grok J2K codecs

Timothy Gu timothygu99 at gmail.com
Tue Apr 5 00:54:50 CEST 2016


On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 03:54:11PM -0400, Aaron Boxer wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The following changes were made:
> > >
> > > 1. Removed bpp (redundant as this information is already stored in
> > precision)
> >
> > Does compilation still work without this change?
> >
> Yes.

Then the change is unrelated, and either needs to be in a separate patch or
not commited at all.

> >
> > Does the compilation of OpenJPEG break _now_ without the patch? If so,
> > submit
> > a bug report, if not, then this change merits further discussion.
> >
> Compilation against OpenJPEG master is broken, but everything works with
> the latest release
> of OpenJPEG (2.1)

Would be great if you post the compilation log and file a ticket.

> >
> > If there isn't a way to detect Grok from OpenJPEG, there should be one.
> >
> > If it is not clear to you why we are so against AGPL, it is because it
> > incurs
> > additional restrictions on the work that we don't consider to be in the
> > spirit
> > of free software, regardless of what FSF says. But I think you already know
> > about that.
> >
> Why do you consider it to not be in the spirit of free software?
> So far, nobody has given me a convincing argument against the use of  the

I believe most members of the FFmpeg community consider free software the same
way Linus Torvalds (among others) considers it: share the
sources/modifications if you are distributing them, and do whatever you want
with it if you are not.

We have no problem whatsoever with the entities using FFmpeg on their server
without distributing the binaries or releasing their sources, or tivoization
(which is a related, but different issue). Sure, it's better if they submit
the patches, and we think that they are missing out by not submitting them,
but we don't have any problems with it.

We do have a problem with the people that are preventing others from using the
software under the aforementioned legitimate circumstances. For existing
non-free software, we really don't have a choice, and it is clear to the user
that such a copy of FFmpeg is non-free. But licenses like AGPL which claim it
is "free" but fail our criteria of freedom are deemed to be "evil." In fact,
AGPL is much more restrictive than most non-free licenses we deal with, since
it concerns use in addition to distribution (see also Reimar's comments).

Moving forward, thanks to the explicit GPL compatibility shoehorned into
Chapter 13 of AGPLv3, there isn't anything that makes us license our _own
work_ as AGPL simply because FFmpeg binary is linked to an AGPL work (in fact,
we cannot relicense our own code from LGPL to AGPLv3 like we can from LGPL to
GPL). But using such a resultant mixture of licenses isn't something we want
our users, personal or enterprise, to deal with.

And that is why we are making more fuss about AGPL than most non-free


P.S. I am not a lawyer.

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list