[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Cherry picks vs merges

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 01:42:42PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> 
> > On Jun 4, 2025, at 11:06 AM, Tomas Härdin <git at haerdin.se> wrote:
> > 
> > sön 2025-06-01 klockan 21:23 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> >> And the "explicit license notice" you refer to is this:
> >> 
> >> "All Librempeg modifications, and any new files not available in
> >> FFmpeg, are licensed under GPL v2,
> >>  unless stated otherwise."
> >> 
> >> And it IS stated otherwise in these files by the license header in
> >> these
> >> files.
> > 
> > These conflicting texts are reason enough not to touch this code unless
> > we're fine with upgrading the license to GPLv2. I don't think the
> > project should get into a legal fight over something like this
> 
> There are no legal fights until somebody starts one.
> The courts are here to settle disagreements and different understandings.
> 
> The fact is that there is even disagreement on whether there is ambiguity
> on the way the fork was re-licensed. Interpretation can be subtle.
> 
> > Given how everything has moved to the cloud, upgrading to GPLv2
> > wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. We should also consider upgrading
> > the fftools to AGPL for the same reason
> > 
> >> That said, with open source and free software it is the morally
> >> correct
> >> thing, if one makes changes to code, to return these changes to the
> >> parent
> >> project under the same license as the parent project.
> >> This is morally the ONLY correct thing one can do.
> > 
> > This is incredibly spooked. Paul plays the license game the way he sees
> > fit, as does everyone else
> 
> We are also free to play the same license game.
> 
> Nonetheless, if the modifications are good, we need to incorporate them in
> some way, so what is the alternative proposed ?

ATM, iam waiting for jb/fflabs lawyer.
If that reply never comes or is ambigous ill have to pay a lawyer to get
a clear reply.

once that reply is in, we can discuss. And if theres no consensus we
can vote. (mainly merge vs cherry pick but we could vote on license too)

I think most agree that the base license for FFmpeg should stay LGPL
and that new codecs and filters will all be added under the most
permissive license thats possible. But if theres a disagreement
that can be discussed and voted on too.


> 
> New filters and codecs will be added with —enable-gpl, that’s a given.

yes i see it the same way.

about GPL licensed modifications to LGPL code. (assuming anything falls in this
category)

It would just be rethinking from --enable-gpl to "git pull almpeg ...


thx

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there
will be no State. -- Vladimir Lenin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20250605/f775df6c/attachment.sig>