Hi Ronald,
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Aaron Boxer <boxe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Ronald, > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Aaron Boxer <boxe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 7:13 AM, wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 17:31:25 -0400 > > > > > Aaron Boxer <boxe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a small patch to get FFmpeg working with both OpenJPEG > > master > > > > and > > > > > > Grok master, for J2K support. The comment on the commit has all > of > > > the > > > > > > details; the main change is to remove the OPJ_STATIC flag from > > > > configure, > > > > > > so that FFmpeg can be configured with a dynamic build of both > > codecs. > > > > > > > > > > > > I also want to reiterate that because FFmpeg can be distributed > > under > > > > GPL > > > > > > v3, and Grok is licensed under the AGPL, there are no licensing > > > issues > > > > > > regarding distributing FFmpeg together with Grok. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting from Wikipedia: > > > > > > > > > > > > "By contrast, GPLv3 and AGPLv3 each include clauses (in section > 13 > > of > > > > > each > > > > > > license) that together achieve a form of mutual compatibility for > > the > > > > two > > > > > > licenses. These clauses explicitly allow the "conveying > > > > > > <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/convey#Verb>" of a work formed > by > > > > > linking > > > > > > code licensed under the one license against code licensed under > the > > > > other > > > > > > license,[3] > > > > > > < > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License#cite_note-3 > > > > > > > > > > > > despite the licenses otherwise not allowing relicensing under the > > > terms > > > > > of > > > > > > each other.[4] > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License#cite_note-fsf2-4 > > > > > > > > > > > > In this way, the copyleft of each license is relaxed to allow > > > > > distributing > > > > > > such combinations.[4] " > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License#cite_note-fsf2-4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, this patch will expand the choice of J2K codecs for all users > > who > > > > use > > > > > > FFmpeg under the GPLv3 license. > > > > > > > > > > AGPL is evil. That alone warrants creating a better, actually free > > > > > version of the decoder. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only difference between AGPL and GPL is the proviso that users > > > > connecting to a program using AGPL code > > > > must be provided with the full source code for the program. This is > to > > > > close the loophole in the GPL where > > > > someone can take free software, put it in the "cloud", and then treat > > it > > > as > > > > closed, non-free software, because they > > > > do not have to distribute modifications. > > > > > > > > Please explain why you think this is a Bad Thing (TM) ? > > > > > > > > > Because it's a fork, not in the codebase sense but in the licensing > > sense, > > > but the effect is the same. We will not be able to combine multiple > > > branches of the fork because each of them is only compatible in its own > > > direction - "LGPL code can be merged into AGPL code to create AGPL > code" > > > but not the other way around. > > > > > > That is fundamentally unfair for those of us that actually _want_ a > > > LGPLv2.1-or-later codebase. Why would you get all our spoils but not > the > > > other way around? > > > > > > > Sorry, I was wrong in my original statements. I've learned a bit more > about > > how these > > licenses work. > > > > This is not a fork. FSF allows GPL 3 and AGPL 3 code to be combined. > > If FFmpeg can be distributed according to GPL 3, then it can included > AGPL > > 3 code. > > > > Very simple. > > > Oh, no, no, no. Very simple for _you_, with your _simple_ goal of using > ffmpeg and profiting from it by AGPL'ing your component. > > But for me, as a maintainer, can I combine GPLv2 with AGPLv3? For example, > can I link a GPLv2 application with a AGPLv3 build of ffmpeg and distribute > the result? Can I link an AGPLv3 build of ffmpeg with a closed-source > application and distribute the result? Can "big" users of ffmpeg, companies > that fund out project (through e.g. GSoC), like, say, Google, use AGPLv3 > builds of ffmpeg without a change in their respective requirements for > complying with the license terms? > > Or, to say it differently: who profits from AGPLv3 components? FFmpeg? Or > just you? I think it's just you, and that's extremely selfish. It's not in > the best interest of our project to accept AGPLv3 components, it's only in > your self-interest that it be accepted. And _that_'s a fundamental problem. > > All of your arguments could be applied equally to GPL v3 components. And yet, FFmpeg is happy to allow distribution under GPL v3. So, I don't see what the problem is here. Yes, Google has a no-AGPL policy, so they won't be able to use it. I am sure they will survive somehow without my J2k codec. Kind Regards, Aaron > Ronald > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
