On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 7:06 PM, James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/19/2015 11:34 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde wrote: >> +/** >> + * erf function >> + * Algorithm taken from the Boost project, source: >> + * http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_46_1/boost/math/special_functions/erf.hpp >> + * Use, modification and distribution are subject to the >> + * Boost Software License, Version 1.0 (see notice below). >> + * Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003 >> +Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization >> +obtaining a copy of the software and accompanying documentation covered by >> +this license (the "Software") to use, reproduce, display, distribute, >> +execute, and transmit the Software, and to prepare derivative works of the >> +Software, and to permit third-parties to whom the Software is furnished to >> +do so, all subject to the following: >> + >> +The copyright notices in the Software and this entire statement, including >> +the above license grant, this restriction and the following disclaimer, >> +must be included in all copies of the Software, in whole or in part, and >> +all derivative works of the Software, unless such copies or derivative >> +works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code generated by >> +a source language processor. >> + >> +THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR >> +IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, >> +FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT >> +SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR ANYONE DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE >> +FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, >> +ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER >> +DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. >> + */ > > Unrelated to the actual patch, but how about instead doing what the FAQ > section > of http://www.boost.org/users/license.html mentions and adding the Boost > license > in a separate file? > That way, only the short four line snippet mentioned there would be needed > here > and in swr/resample.c
I had numerous back and forths with Carl regarding licensing. The short summary is: I am not a lawyer, and I like to play it safe. Thus, I think it belongs to a separate patch, and I would not do it myself as I don't have the needed expertise. > _______________________________________________ > 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
