[FFmpeg-devel] Legal Advice Was: [POLL][RFC] Merge vs Cherry pick for integration of changes

[Kieran Kunhya]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2025, 21:33 Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel, <
ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Here is the legal advice that i was given.
> The GA has the full text and that is much more detailed.
> Iam posting the relevant parts so the whole community can see it.
>
> "a claim that there is GPLv2 code in a file of
>  FFmpeg origin that has the LGPLv2.1 license would be a breach of the
> FFmpeg's
>  LGPLv2.1 license. While section 3 of the LGPLv2.1 would have allowed him
> to
>  take the original FFmpeg files and change the license for them to GPLv2,
> he
>  didn't follow the necessary steps to effectively change the license. So
> the
>  original code he is building from is still under LGPLv2.1. Since code
>  contributions to a copyleft work have to be under the /same /license as
> the
>  code you are contributing to (Section 2(c), "You must cause the whole of
> the
>  work to be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
> this
>  License"), Paul's contributions to LGPLv2.1 files are under the LGPLv2.1
>  license because he didn't exercise the option to change them to GPLv2
> first. A
>  claim otherwise would be admitting he is in breach of the FFmpeg license."
>
> "You can safely assume that any new file he created with a license
>  identifier in the file of LGPLv.2.1 is under the LGPLv2.1 license."
>
> "Paul's response to your use of his code may be to relicense his code under
>  the AGPL,* but he cannot change the license retroactively - you would
> have to
>  accommodate the AGPL license for any later changes you adopt, but not for
> any
>  code you are using from before a license change."
>
> thx
>
> [...]
>

Can you confirm the FFlabs lawyer said something different? And so you went
to another one until you got the answer you wanted?

Kieran

>