[FFmpeg-devel] [FFmpeg-cvslog] doc: chromaprint

[Carl Eugen Hoyos]

2018-12-04 14:53 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi <gyandoshi at gmail.com>:
> On 04-12-2018 07:10 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>> 2018-12-04 14:32 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi <gyandoshi at gmail.com>:
>>> On 04-12-2018 06:38 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>>>> 2018-12-04 13:53 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi <gyandoshi at gmail.com>:
>>>>> On 04-12-2018 06:15 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>>>>>> 2018-12-04 12:10 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi <git at videolan.org>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + at section Chromaprint
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +FFmpeg can make use of the Chromaprint library for generating audio
>>>>>>> fingerprints.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +It is licensed under LGPL version 2.1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No other library is described like this.
>>>>>> Why are you adding legal statements that are unneeded?
>>>>>
>>>>> I see licensing notes for libxavs2, libdavs2, "OpenCORE, VisualOn, and
>>>>> Fraunhofer libraries", x264 & x265.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the situation for chromaprint and GME different than for the libs
>>>>> above
>>>>
>>>> Yes, very much so.
>>>
>>> Please explain.
>>
>> The license is only mentioned for projects that are not LGPL-compatible,
>> it is unneeded to mention LGPL-compatibility.
>
> OK, so my licensing mentions are superfluous. But where's the risk?

> The FFmpeg project has to stake a position on licensing of all components,
> internal or external, for the sake of configuration.

Why do we "have" to take a position?
Our configure script intends to help people not violating our copyright,
it does not claim any particular position and it certainly doesn't claim
some library is compatible with some software license.
Otherwise, we would already be in serious trouble as configure in
past did not protest using libraries that are not compatible with the
GPL for binaries based on FFmpeg.

> My commits simply convey that into the docs - it doesn't create
> a new judgement or make one where none existed.

It claims something (that may or may not be correct) instead of
leaving the responsibility with the distributor (who alone has this
responsibility).

> If you continue to feel strongly about this, I'll remove those
> sentences. But for the sake of a sane and consistent policy, can you
> provide a positive reason why their removal is needed?

I feel very strongly about not giving legal advice (where I live, this
is not allowed) and you are continually giving legal advice. Even if
you are a lawyer (or otherwise entitled), I don't think it is a good
idea to guarantee that some libraries are compatible with the LGPL.

Carl Eugen