[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder

[Reimar Döffinger]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 02:20:41PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> On 3/24/2009 2:03 PM, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> > You did not answer my question. What should happen with that code
> > after we accepted it?
> 
> It is is accepted and commited in the repository. People are free to and
> use it under the LGPL v2.1, like the rest of files under the LGPL v2.1
> and the files under the "LGPL v2.1 or later". However if someone wants
> to use it under LGPL v3, he cannot, while he can use other files
> licensed under "LGPL v2.1 or later"
> 
> > Will it be possible to compile a FFmpeg version that can used under
> > LGPL v3?
> 
> Of course, I don't see how it could not, just this file would be not
> compiled in.

And how would this "would be not compiled in" happen? Magic? I can't
understand why you want to discuss inclusion of such code without
discussing how users will choose to use it or not.

> > Will it be the default?
> 
> I don't know, people have to make a choice.

So you are saying you are okay if the policy is "we accept LGPL v2.1
only code but you may not hook it up into configure or Makefiles?"
If not I say again: Please tell us what _exactly_ you have in mind.
E.g. writing "LGPL v2.1 only" in the header and including it only with
--enable-gpl should be no issue at all, and I am fine with this as a
"last resort" approach.

> > 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.
> 
> I believe what I propose (accepting code under "LGPL v2.1 only" _and_
> accepting code under "LGPL v2.1 or later" is more flexible that only
> accepting "LGPL v2.1 or later". I cannot see how it could be less flexible.

Not the one interpretion that is "FFmpeg can only be compiled as LGPL
v2.1 only or GPL without manually hacking the Makefiles", at least not
for end-users.
I am since several mails trying to find out if that is what you meant,
but it seems to me you did not consider that point at all, and in that
case I repeat again that I can't see how discussing "accepting" code
without knowing to it will be hooked up into the build system.