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

[Kieran Kunhya]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2025, 11:56 Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel, <
ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org> wrote:

> Hi Kieran
>
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2025 at 07:53:45AM +0100, Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel
> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> I cannot confirm this. I dont remember ever seeing the reply or the
> question.
>
> My communication with the FFlabs lawyer was through a intermediary
> developer,
> who was very busy and the mails where also terse
>
> IIRC i also had to ask multiple times to get any awnser
>

Translation: The FFlabs lawyer didn't agree with my agenda and so I went
and found one that did.

It's funny how you are reluctant to post that lawyers opinion [because it
didn't agree with you] when you happily leak private discussions (e.g from
the CC) on this list all the time.

To use Anton's words "tin-pot dictator" behaviour in action.

Kieran

>