On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 10:38 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Am So., 12. Mai 2019 um 22:37 Uhr schrieb Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com>: > > > > On 5/12/19, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Am Fr., 10. Mai 2019 um 17:15 Uhr schrieb Lynne <d...@lynne.ee>: > > >> > > >> Patch updated again. > > >> Made some more cleanups to the transforms, the tables and the main > > >> context. > > >> API changed again, now the init function populates the function pointer > > >> for transform. > > >> I decided that having a separate function would encourage bad usage (e.g. > > >> calling > > >> the function every time before doing a transform rather than storing the > > >> pointer) when > > >> we're trying to avoid the overhead of function calls. > > >> Also adjusted file names to match the API. > > > > > > As said, this patch is not ok as long as the copyright statements are > > > missing. > > > > > > > You are mislead. No statements are necessary. > > Why do you think so? > > The commit message states that a part of the code is coming > from a file with an extensive copyright statement: Why would > it be ok to remove it? >
The names at the top of the file are always going to be inaccurate, and as such meaningless, because everyone that changed the file in a meaningful way holds a copyright over those changes, and not everyone is added to that list (typically, no-one beyond the original author is present there). Since the list is not complete, and as such does not allow you to identify who actually holds all the copyright in such a file, its not legally relevant. Everyone of the authors still hold a copyright no matter if the name is present there, or not. - Hendrik _______________________________________________ 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".
