[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v2] libavutil: add an FFT & MDCT implementation

[Carl Eugen Hoyos]

Am So., 12. Mai 2019 um 22:59 Uhr schrieb Hendrik Leppkes <h.leppkes at gmail.com>:
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 10:38 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Am So., 12. Mai 2019 um 22:37 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol <onemda at gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > On 5/12/19, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Am Fr., 10. Mai 2019 um 17:15 Uhr schrieb Lynne <dev at lynne.ee>:
> > > >>
> > > >> Patch updated again.
> > > >> Made some more cleanups to the transforms, the tables and the main
> > > >> context.
> > > >> API changed again, now the init function populates the function pointer
> > > >> for transform.
> > > >> I decided that having a separate function would encourage bad usage (e.g.
> > > >> calling
> > > >> the function every time before doing a transform rather than storing the
> > > >> pointer) when
> > > >> we're trying to avoid the overhead of function calls.
> > > >> Also adjusted file names to match the API.
> > > >
> > > > As said, this patch is not ok as long as the copyright statements are
> > > > missing.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You are mislead. No statements are necessary.
> >
> > Why do you think so?
> >
> > The commit message states that a part of the code is coming
> > from a file with an extensive copyright statement: Why would
> > it be ok to remove it?
>
> The names at the top of the file are always going to be inaccurate,

Possibly.

> and as such meaningless,

(Impossible to parse)

> because everyone that changed the file in a
> meaningful way holds a copyright over those changes,

Of course!

> and not everyone is added to that list

True.

> (typically, no-one beyond the original author is present there).

Depending on the meaning of "typically" this may be true
(but is probably "meaningless").

> Since the list is not complete, and as such does not allow you to
> identify who actually holds all the copyright in such a file, its not
> legally relevant.

This is - to quote a Viennese scientist - not even wrong;-)

But seriously: We are of course not allowed to remove copyright
statements, no matter if we consider them relevant or not.

> Everyone of the authors still hold a copyright no matter if the name
> is present there, or not.

Yes, and this is the reason why we must not remove the names
of those present (they also hold a copyright, not just those whose
names are missing).

Carl Eugen