[FFmpeg-devel] GOM Player on the Blacklisted Projects

[Diego Biurrun]

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 01:38:22PM -0400, Francois Oligny-Lemieux wrote:
> 
> I have one question that you can find inline:

Please fix your quoting and snip text not relevant to your reply.  This
would also save you from adding silly comments to the top of your mails
in order to keep people from skipping reading it after getting bored of
scrolling through unrelated quoted text.  Thanks.

> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:06 AM, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 04:22:43PM +0900, ??? Ethan Park wrote:
> > >
> > > I forwarded your email to our development team, and they made the
> > > following changes.
> > >
> > >       Changes:
> > >               libavcodec ported to win32 dll using MinGW
> >
> > That's also a good start, but not precise enough.  A sufficiently
> > precise answer would be a diff file with your changes.
> 
> Are you sure he's required to go that precise. My understanding is of
> GPL/LGPL is that he's just required to show the modification date on the
> specific file(s) modified.

LGPL-2.1, paragraph 2:
    b) You must cause the files modified to carry prominent notices
    stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

None of the files are marked as modified AFAICS and none carry any sort
of timestamps of changes.  So they have to be much more precise than
they are right now.  The best way for them to make us happy is to
provide the exact version number and a diff with changes or similar.

This may in fact be less than the letter of the license requires, but
it's more convenient for both sides.  Thus such a solution would be
preferred by us.

> To contribute back to the community with the diffed changes is
> optional and often on ffmpeg-devl mailing list when someone send its
> diff saying it's to comply with GPL, one of you respond that he's out
> in the field and that the license never compels him to do that.

Who said that and when?

Diego