[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 23:00
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [ANNOUNCEMENT] almpeg
> 
> Hi sw
> 
> On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 05:56:06PM +0000, softworkz . wrote:
> [...]
> 
> > > But i certainly was and am open to talk with paul.
> >
> > I'd make at least an attempt before going the hard way.
> 
> I intended to wait for him to contact me, but sure ill
> mail him first then

┈┈┈┈┈┈▕▔╲
┈┈┈┈┈┈┈▏▕
┈┈┈┈┈┈┈▏▕▂▂▂
▂▂▂▂▂▂╱┈▕▂▂▂▏
▉▉▉▉▉┈┈┈▕▂▂▂▏
▉▉▉▉▉┈┈┈▕▂▂▂▏
▔▔▔▔▔▔╲▂▕▂▂▂▏
⠀   
                          

> > > > 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?
> 
> 
> in what you write, replce GPL by LGPL as in:
> 
> > He appears to be updating regularly from FFmpeg, so if I would want
> > FFmpeg + his work under LGPL - then I could use his project directly - no?
> 
> I mean, you seem to think this argument doesnt work if the license is LGPL
> why would it be different with the GPL?

Ah yes - that's because it is a built-in "feature" of the LGPL that everybody
is allowed to relicense derivative work from LGPL code under a GPL license.
But it is not allowed to do this in the other direction.
That's what I meant to express by saying that it's a one-way path.

Best,
sw