[MPlayer-dev-eng] [RFC] upgrade license on LGPL 2 files

[Diego Biurrun]

On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 12:32:56AM +0200, Aurelien Jacobs wrote:
> Diego Biurrun wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 01:37:46PM +0200, Aurelien Jacobs wrote:
> > > Robert Swain wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 2008/9/11 Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de>:
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 07:41:11AM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > > >> The following files are licensed as LGPL 2 or later, not LGPL 2.1 or
> > > > >> later:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> libvo/vo_gif89a.c
> > > > >> libvo/vo_directfb2.c
> > > > >> libvo/vo_quartz.h
> > > > >> libvo/vo_dfbmga.c
> > > > >> TOOLS/dvd2divxscript.pl
> > > > >> libmpdemux/demux_avs.h
> > > > >> libmpdemux/demux_avs.c
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I propose that we upgrade to LGPL 2.1 or later on these files in order
> > > > >> to reduce the number of licenses used in our code base.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since I am hearing no objections, I will do this after the weekend.
> > > > 
> > > > Hmm. Have you contacted authors individually? It seems wrong to me to
> > > > alter the license without all authors' explicit consent.
> > > 
> > > The respective authors already explicitly allowed such a change (by
> > > using "or later" in their original license).
> > 
> > Precisely.  Otherwise relicensing would be impossible without the
> > authors' consent.
> > 
> > > So it's not needed to contact them (still it would be more polite).
> > 
> > No.  There is no need to ask for a permission twice, it was already
> > given.  It's not even polite, it's a useless bother.  And what would you
> > do if the permission was not renewed?
> 
> Please re-read the sentence you quoted... I intentionally used the
> word "contact" instead of "ask". The idea was simply to tell the
> author that their code is being re-licensed. But, anyway, I guess
> you're right that it's a useless bother.

OK, I misunderstood you then.  It's good we agree it's a useless bother
though.

Diego