[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] G722 decoder

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:57:05PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:44:04PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:58:22AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 06:53:20PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> > > > Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 04:39:15PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> > > > >> Well, about 2) I already expressed concerns about 2 files in the 
> > > > >> FFmpeg codebase namely vc1dsp_mmx.c and fdctref.c, which are not 
> > > > >> _explictely_ part of FFmpeg, since it is not mentioned in their 
> > > > >> header, and are not under LGPL v2.1+ explictely since it is not 
> > > > >> mentioned in their header either.
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> I still don't know if we need to _explicitely_ relicense them to 
> > > > >> LGPL v2.1+, if we want to _distribute_ FFmpeg as a "whole" as LGPL 
> > > > >> v2.1+.
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> The fact that we are _allowed_ doesn't tell if we _need_ to or not.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I have already replied to this before.  I'm a glutton for punishment,
> > > > >  once more:
> > > > > 
> > > > > libavcodec/fdctref.c is only used in a small test program.  It's 
> > > > > nonfree anyway, but will hopefully be replaced soon.
> > > > 
> > > > Hummm,
> > > > 
> > > > ---------------------
> > > > Quoting you in 2006 in:
> > > > "[Ffmpeg-devel] overall license review - adding proper license headers
> > > > Diego Biurrun diego at biurrun.de
> > > > Sun Sep 3 16:18:30 CEST 2006
> > > > 
> > > > > its only a tiny part of the reference code and its only used for 
> > > > > testing and comparing our (i)dcts against it furthermore it is as
> > > > > said not part of compiled ffmpeg libavcodec or libavformat IMO thats
> > > > > fair use, but iam not against it if someone wants to rewrite it, its
> > > > > very little work, just a schoolbook (i)dct
> > > > 
> > > > I disagree, there is no way around the "all rights reserved".  We cannot
> > > > distribute it in tarballs.
> > > > 
> > > > Any volunteers to rewrite it?  Is dct-test still useful?"
> > > > --------------------
> > > > 
> > > > However, we distributed it within FFmpeg 0.5 tarball.
> > > > Did you change your mind ?
> > > 
> > > No, I wanted to remove it, but I was overruled.  What was I to do?  The
> > 
> > overruled by whom?
> 
> You, if memory serves me right.

he ?!

i dont think i did ... at least for 0.5 id suspect i would remember

[...]

-- 
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/20090327/3e0c308c/attachment.pgp>