On 23.04.2018 21:02, James Almer wrote: > On 4/23/2018 6:27 AM, Thomas Volkert wrote: >> On 22.04.2018 20:03, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >>> 2018-04-22 20:00 GMT+02:00, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org>: >>>> Carl Eugen Hoyos (2018-04-22): >>>>> How do you detect that this is not the "current version" of mbed? >>>> Is it really our responsibility? >>> We try to always do it and I believe that allowing LGPL makes >>> more sense and less headache: Since we do the checks so >>> rigorously it makes sense to assume we did it as correctly >>> for this case. >>> >>> I don't understand why we don't go the easy way that clearly >>> has advantages instead for the complicated way (with at >>> least some disadvantages). >> Okay. I looked over their web page and the Debian packages again. >> The web page of mbedTLS declares Apache license as the "primary open >> source license". >> >> I will add it to EXTERNAL_LIBRARY_VERSION3_LIST and push it today, if >> their are no further objections. > Not only there was an objection/request by Rostislav Pehlivanov you > ignored, I haven't ignored him, I answered him. My mails were delayed by some minutes.
> you also pushed this after ONE day in the ml, I posted the patch 3 times on the mailing list, it was for 2 days on the list. > with absolutely > no review. There were already answers which contained reasonable feedback (in my opinion). Please, make a a review in the way you like and send it to the list. > What exactly was the hurry? > > Please, revert this. Forcing your way through is not how code should be > committed. That was not the intention. Let's focus on the content. Best regards, Thomas. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
