> On Jun 4, 2025, at 11:06 AM, Tomas Härdin <g...@haerdin.se> wrote: > > 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
There are no legal fights until somebody starts one. The courts are here to settle disagreements and different understandings. The fact is that there is even disagreement on whether there is ambiguity on the way the fork was re-licensed. Interpretation can be subtle. > 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 We are also free to play the same license game. Nonetheless, if the modifications are good, we need to incorporate them in some way, so what is the alternative proposed ? New filters and codecs will be added with —enable-gpl, that’s a given. — Baptiste _______________________________________________ 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".
