sön 2025-06-01 klockan 21:23 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer: > And the "explicit license notice" you refer to is this: > > "All Librempeg modifications, and any new files not available in > FFmpeg, are licensed under GPL v2, > unless stated otherwise." > > And it IS stated otherwise in these files by the license header in > these > files.
These conflicting texts are reason enough not to touch this code unless we're fine with upgrading the license to GPLv2. I don't think the project should get into a legal fight over something like this Given how everything has moved to the cloud, upgrading to GPLv2 wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. We should also consider upgrading the fftools to AGPL for the same reason > That said, with open source and free software it is the morally > correct > thing, if one makes changes to code, to return these changes to the > parent > project under the same license as the parent project. > This is morally the ONLY correct thing one can do. This is incredibly spooked. Paul plays the license game the way he sees fit, as does everyone else > The technicality is that one can change the LGPL to a GPL or AGPL. > The purpose of this is allowing to combine LGPL with GPL or AGPL > NOT to fork a project and prevent the parent project and its users > from having access to the modifications. Only users that want to downgrade the license are prevented from doing so. I'm sure Paul is also aware of the concept of license trolling /Tomas _______________________________________________ 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".
