[Ffmpeg-devel] overall license review - adding proper license headers

[Diego Biurrun]

On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 01:06:23AM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 04:17:47PM +0200, Benjamin Larsson wrote:
> > Diego Biurrun skrev:
> > >
> > >Judging from what you have written so far the answer is probably no.  In
> > >this case we should go back to plain GPL on that file IMO.
> > >  [...]
> > 
> > I dissagre to place it under GPL only, just extend the wording so it's 
> > less likely to missunderstand it. Otherwise you will remove a feature 
> > from the LGPL version of ffmpeg.
> 
> It's not a feature but an arch-specific optimization, that's a difference.
> 
> The problem we're facing here is license-proliferation.  What is the
> license of FFmpeg?  LGPL.  Or rather LGPL, unless you enable some parts
> that are GPL and then the whole becomes GPL.
> 
> Or is it?
> 
> So what exactly is the license if libavcodec/i386/idct_mmx.c is part of
> FFmpeg?  GPL?  LGPL?  LGPL with an extra clause?  Which clause exactly?
> I haven't seen Michel make a crystal-clear statement yet and the note we
> currently have is so misleading to be downright wrong.
> 
> This has practical implications as well.  Is another option for
> configure needed?  --enable-gpl and --enable-lgpl-with-strings-attached?
> 
> And now what happens about reusability.  Can I reuse that file under
> LGPL if I take it out of libavcodec?  No?  Yes?  So can I just import
> all of libavcodec into my project and just compile in that file?  What
> if I reuse all of libavcodec, but drop some codecs I don't need or other
> parts?
> 
> You may call this removing a feature, I call it removing a legal
> boobytrap.

One more argument against this license exception: Look at Linux for an
example of a popular program that carries license exception or
clarification and see how often it is misunderstood.  Now try doing the
same for a file hidden deep within the bowels of FFmpeg.  This is just
asking for infringement.  It's not something we should do.

Diego