[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] License header consistency

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 01:45:44AM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:46:11PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:06:26PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 08:48:02PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-cvslog/2006-October/004072.html
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > We have discussed this multiple times already. You choose to ignore
> > > > > > > the argument again and again.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I repeatly ignored "sigh" and failed to guess what you meant?
> > > > > 
> > > > > You repeatedly committed no license headers or wrong license headers.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We have had this whole discussion about license headers multiple times
> > > > > and I have reiterated my arguments multiple times.
> > > > 
> > > > Your arguments weight as much as everyone elses. You arent the boss here
> > > > or something.
> > > 
> > > WTF was that for now?
> > 
> > You are talking as if you where the boss, i thought i remind you, that you
> > are not.
> > I can accept some arogance but at some point its too much.
> 
> I have never pretended any such thing.  You are the one who is on a
> rampage here, not me.

"
 You repeatedly committed no license headers or wrong license headers.

 We have had this whole discussion about license headers multiple times
 and I have reiterated my arguments multiple times.
"

Sounded to me like some boss or parent scolding


> 
> > > > Our vote says 2:2 if i counted correctly. If theres a majority that
> > > > prefers developers to check license headers instead of spending the
> > > > minute per new file coding, i will follow that.
> > > 
> > > So you are taking this vote seriously?  I just heard you say:
> > > 
> > >   And this is a argument i agree with, a non existing license version
> > >   is bad and should be replaced
> > > 
> > > So what is your vote exactly?
> > 
> > my vote is NO, any VALID license that is compatible with the LGPL 2.1
> > can be used.
> > There is no need to use "ffmpeg" instead of "this library" or to use a
> > specific address of the FSF nor is anyone forced to pick LGPL 2.1
> 
> You want to be able to pick any version of the LGPL?

no
I do not want to have to spend time making the license binary identical
to the currently accepted one.
Ill surely keep an eye on lesser 2.0 and library 2.1


> 
> > This vote is NOT about invalid licenses.
> > At the time at which i started the vote i was not aware of my mistake of
> > commiting a licene header refereing to a non existing license. And had i
> > been aware i would not have started the vote.
> 
> You are now aware of it, why do you continue?

i voted just once :)
After that we seem to have been rather successfull in getting the other to
write yet another reply.

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Breaking DRM is a little like attempting to break through a door even
though the window is wide open and the only thing in the house is a bunch
of things you dont want and which you would get tomorrow for free anyway
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20080819/cd6af681/attachment.pgp>