[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder

[Reimar Döffinger]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:27:38PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> On 3/24/2009 12:56 PM, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> > What do you want to vote about? That LGPL v2.1 only code gets build by
> > default when the official license says "LGPL v2.1 or later"?
> > Or that we should make all of FFmpeg officially LGPL v2.1 only? Then
> > it's weird of you to call Diego arrogant, because even if all of the
> > currently active developers agree far more provided code under the "or
> > later" term, and you are the one second-guessing their opinions.
> 
> I'd like to vote on the different licenses we accept.

You did not answer my question. What should happen with that code after
we accepted it?
Will it be possible to compile a FFmpeg version that can used under LGPL
v3? Will it be the default? I doubt you are fine with "accepting" the
code but making sure it will never be compiled, that would be rather
silly. Before proposing a vote you should define what you want to vote
about in a way that makes sense.

> I only speak for myself here, regarding license issues, that is why I'd
> like a vote so everyone can speak for themselves. I believe you are
> wrong when saying that I'm arrogant, and I take it very badly.

I did _not_ say that you are arrogant. _One_ interpretation of what you
propose (which as said is rather murky to me) is more intrusive than
what Diego proposes IMO, and in that case I can see not how the way you
react to him is justified.

> > Given the language in the LGPL license (allowing to relicense to
> > basically any GPL version), I consider the concern about the
> > "or later" extremely strange unless you advocate to go with "GPL v2
> > only"...
> > Either you trust the FSF, then LGPL "or later" should be good, or you
> > don't and then the LGPL should be completely out of question IMO...
> 
> Why this ? I can agree to specific license at some time. Then if I want
> to relicense it under a new revision of the license, I can, but it still
> let me the possibility to _refuse_, this does not invalidate the
> previous license.

Are you sure you read what I wrote? My argument is that "LGPL v2.1 only"
already gives the FSF fully free hand, so I can't see what you think you
win over "LGPL v2.1 or later"?