> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Michael
> Niedermayer
> Sent: Montag, 26. Mai 2025 13:37
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [ANNOUNCEMENT] almpeg
>
> Hi softworkz
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 09:27:17AM +0000, softworkz . wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Rémi
> Denis-
> > > Courmont
> > > Sent: Montag, 26. Mai 2025 10:01
> > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [ANNOUNCEMENT] almpeg
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Le 25 mai 2025 22:22:52 GMT+03:00, Michael Niedermayer
> > > <mich...@niedermayer.cc> a écrit :
> > > >Note the license of this code is a bit wonky. The files have one
> > > >license and theres another one in LICENSE.md.
> > > >While I belives legally this allows one to choose either. I suggest
> > > >you check this with a lawyer.
> > >
> > > You do realise that FFmpeg does the exact same thing:
> > > - have a top-level license file (with the same name even) explaining, or
> > > trying to explain, which file is under which license,
> > > - carry a copy of every GNU licenses as separate files.
> >
> > From my understanding and what I've read, a specific license in a source
> > file header is generally considered to take precedence over what's stated
> > in any accompanying files. There are also recommendations specifically
> > about relicensing LGPL code under GP, recommending to change all source
> > file headers accordingly.
> > Also, you cannot (effectively) relicense specific changes only, simply
> > because nobody can know what those changes would be - given that the
> > prescribed form of distribution is source code, not a version control
> > repository. In turn, to properly re-license LGPL to GPL, the whole
> > source files need to be re-licensed under GPL and that needs to be
> > indicated as such.
> >
> >
>
> > Generally, I believe that we should at least try to come to
> > an agreement. The GPL may create a kind of one-way situation,
> > but if we would decide to do some project reorganization, code style
> > and variable naming unification and other global improvements which
> > involve lots of changes to many files, then that one-way flow would
> > start congesting in a very inconvenient way as well.
>
> The way it is ATM, is that
> 1. code that is GPL in ffmpeg, everything can be merged (because it must be
> GPL)
> 2. code that is LGPL in ffmpeg, we can merge LGPL code
> 3. code that is not in ffmpeg, we can include GPL and LGPL with correct
> headers and set gpl depandancy in configure accordingly
>
> 4. we can provide a seperate repository that includes everything and is GPL
> we dont have to make a choice about changing mainline to GPL
>
>
> Its Pauls code and he must make a choice what license he wants his code to
> be under. ATM most files contain LGPL headers
> If he chooses to actually relicense everything to GPL he has to replace
> these headers and he will loose users by switching to a more restrictive
> license. But he cannot have it both ways, if the code is LGPL then its
> LGPL for everybody
>
>
> >
> > An agreement must involve benefits for both sides, and also allow
> > each side to pursue their goals. Maybe it would be acceptable
> > when there's a regulation that guarantees a period of "n years"
> > before things get into FFmpeg.
>
> Thats not how the GPL and LGPL works.
This is not about licenses. This is about how negotiations can work.
We want his code under LGPL and he wants exclusive features in his
project. And he might want to license under LGPL, which he can't do
because then, FFmpeg would absorb everything instantly.
It's about a possible agreement - independent from any licensing.
> But IMO, if paul wants his fork to be a competing product instead
> then we need to treat it accordingly, the same way he competes with
> us. And that means we should integrate all features and bugfixes
> within the constraints of the licenses.
And then, all Ffmpeg code is poisoned with GPL code and nothing usable
anymore. Who would want that?
Best,
sw
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
