[FFmpeg-devel] [ANNOUNCEMENT] almpeg

[softworkz .]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Michael
> Niedermayer
> Sent: Montag, 26. Mai 2025 19:21
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [ANNOUNCEMENT] almpeg
> 
> Hi
> 
> On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 12:21:24PM +0000, softworkz . wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Michael
> > > Niedermayer
> > > Sent: Montag, 26. Mai 2025 13:37
> > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [ANNOUNCEMENT] almpeg
> > >
> > > Hi softworkz
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 09:27:17AM +0000, softworkz . wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Rémi
> > > Denis-
> > > > > Courmont
> > > > > Sent: Montag, 26. Mai 2025 10:01
> > > > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-
> devel at ffmpeg.org>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [ANNOUNCEMENT] almpeg
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Le 25 mai 2025 22:22:52 GMT+03:00, Michael Niedermayer
> > > > > <michael at niedermayer.cc> a écrit :
> > > > > >Note the license of this code is a bit wonky. The files have one
> > > > > >license and theres another one in LICENSE.md.
> > > > > >While I belives legally this allows one to choose either. I suggest
> > > > > >you check this with a lawyer.
> > > > >
> > > > > You do realise that FFmpeg does the exact same thing:
> > > > > - have a top-level license file (with the same name even) explaining,
> or
> > > > > trying to explain, which file is under which license,
> > > > > - carry a copy of every GNU licenses as separate files.
> > > >
> > > > From my understanding and what I've read, a specific license in a source
> > > > file header is generally considered to take precedence over what's
> stated
> > > > in any accompanying files. There are also recommendations specifically
> > > > about relicensing LGPL code under GP, recommending to change all source
> > > > file headers accordingly.
> > > > Also, you cannot (effectively) relicense specific changes only, simply
> > > > because nobody can know what those changes would be - given that the
> > > > prescribed form of distribution is source code, not a version control
> > > > repository. In turn, to properly re-license LGPL to GPL, the whole
> > > > source files need to be re-licensed under GPL and that needs to be
> > > > indicated as such.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Generally, I believe that we should at least try to come to
> > > > an agreement. The GPL may create a kind of one-way situation,
> > > > but if we would decide to do some project reorganization, code style
> > > > and variable naming unification and other global improvements which
> > > > involve lots of changes to many files, then that one-way flow would
> > > > start congesting in a very inconvenient way as well.
> > >
> > > The way it is ATM, is that
> > > 1. code that is GPL in ffmpeg, everything can be merged (because it must
> be
> > > GPL)
> > > 2. code that is LGPL in ffmpeg, we can merge LGPL code
> > > 3. code that is not in ffmpeg, we can include GPL and LGPL with correct
> > >    headers and set gpl depandancy in configure accordingly
> > >
> > > 4. we can provide a seperate repository that includes everything and is
> GPL
> > >     we dont have to make a choice about changing mainline to GPL
> > >
> > >
> > > Its Pauls code and he must make a choice what license he wants his code to
> > > be under. ATM most files contain LGPL headers
> >
> > Yes, but the intention is that new work is licensed under GPL.
> >
> > Right now, the LGPL headers take precedence and you can safely consider
> > it as LGPL, but you can do that exactly one time, because after that
> > he'll update the headers, because then we'd have declared war.
> 
> Iam not sure Paul will change to GPL

Doesn't the first sentence say that he has done that already?
(by intention, irrespective of valid or not) 

https://github.com/librempeg/librempeg/blob/master/LICENSE.md


> because it would be ineffective
> for what he seems to want to achieve.

Yes, it is ineffective. But it would be even more ineffective to license 
under LGPL, because everything would go into FFmpeg right away.

Like I said before, the GPL is the defense against FFmpeg to build
some relevance and unique advantages over FFmpeg.


> Just hypothetically:
> 1. we merge or cherry pick all his features (LGPL)
> 2. he changes to GPL, now he has 0 features we dont have

He already considers "all his features" as licensed under GPl.

> 3. he works for 2 more years to accumulate new features
> 4. we have a branch/repo called almpeg thats his code + our code and all GPL

IMO, that's not a desirable outcome. It would be much better
to have his contributions under LGPL. 




> [...]
> > > The best thing would be if paul would return, and thats what I pushed
> > > for, for a long time and ive talked (emailed actually) with him and so
> > > far had no luck.
> >
> > That's the wrong question and the most unlikely outcome at all.
> > Instead, ask him what he wants, under which conditions he could possibly
> > imagine to stream code back-and-forth between projects, maybe mention
> > the suggestion I made. It says 'n' and there's a wide range of possible
> > values for that n.
> 
> i see no advantage for us to agree to n>0
> It gives Paul an advantage but theres nothing we gain from it

There is: having the code as LGPL. 


> But i certainly was and am open to talk with paul.

I'd make at least an attempt before going the hard way.


> > And when you really need something, you can still cherry-pick it anyway.
> 
> but we dont really contaminate anything with GPL code

Okay, so if all this will just remain in "almpeg" with GPL - what's the 
benefit?
He appears to be updating regularly from FFmpeg, so if I would want 
FFmpeg + his work under GPL - then I could use his project directly - no?

Thanks
sw