[FFmpeg-soc] [soc]: r2023 - in dcaenc: . checkout.sh dcaenc.c dcaenc.h ffmpeg.patch readme

[Diego Biurrun]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 03:27:58PM +0100, Benjamin Larsson wrote:
> Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 03:12:46PM +0100, Benjamin Larsson wrote:
> >> Diego Biurrun wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 02:40:50PM +0100, banan wrote:
> >>>> --- (empty file)
> >>>> +++ dcaenc/dcaenc.c	Thu Mar 20 14:40:49 2008
> >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,379 @@
> >>>> +/*
> >>>> + * DCA encoder
> >>>> + * Copyright (C) 2008 Alexander E. Patrakov
> >>>> + *
> >>>> + * This file is part of FFmpeg.
> >>>> + *
> >>>> + * When this file is part of FFmpeg it can be licensed under the LGPL 2.1
> >>>> + * currently it is a wip
> >>> Houston, we have a problem here.  First off, the first and the second
> >>> sentence are a contradiction.  Second, FFmpeg is (mostly) licensed as
> >>> LGPL 2.1+, so this code would cause license incompatibilities...
> >>>
> >>> So can we have this as standard LGPL 2.1+ please?
> >> Fixed.
> > 
> > That was only a partial fix.  Now the promise is for LGPL 2.1, but
> > FFmpeg is LGPL 2.1+ ...
> > 
> > Why this "when this code ever enters the magic wonderland, I shall
> > bestow a free license upon it" in the first place?  Get the author to
> > release this as LGPL 2.1+.
> 
> He did, when the code enters the FFmpeg code base. I just wanna respect
> his wishes.

Sure, I'm not saying it's your idea, but it's still a bad idea.  If you
find a moment, please ask him to license as LGPL 2.1+ without
conditions.

> > If somebody cleans this up and integrates it
> > into multimedia lib XYZ, it would be without a license grant...
> > 
> > Diego
> 
> MvH
> Benjamin Larsson

Ah, your quoting...  Remember that you have to set a good example for
the SoC newbies around here :)

Diego