On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 03:27:58PM +0100, Benjamin Larsson wrote: > Diego Biurrun wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 03:12:46PM +0100, Benjamin Larsson wrote: > >> Diego Biurrun wrote: > >>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 02:40:50PM +0100, banan wrote: > >>>> --- (empty file) > >>>> +++ dcaenc/dcaenc.c Thu Mar 20 14:40:49 2008 > >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,379 @@ > >>>> +/* > >>>> + * DCA encoder > >>>> + * Copyright (C) 2008 Alexander E. Patrakov > >>>> + * > >>>> + * This file is part of FFmpeg. > >>>> + * > >>>> + * When this file is part of FFmpeg it can be licensed under the LGPL > >>>> 2.1 > >>>> + * currently it is a wip > >>> Houston, we have a problem here. First off, the first and the second > >>> sentence are a contradiction. Second, FFmpeg is (mostly) licensed as > >>> LGPL 2.1+, so this code would cause license incompatibilities... > >>> > >>> So can we have this as standard LGPL 2.1+ please? > >> Fixed. > > > > That was only a partial fix. Now the promise is for LGPL 2.1, but > > FFmpeg is LGPL 2.1+ ... > > > > Why this "when this code ever enters the magic wonderland, I shall > > bestow a free license upon it" in the first place? Get the author to > > release this as LGPL 2.1+. > > He did, when the code enters the FFmpeg code base. I just wanna respect > his wishes.
Sure, I'm not saying it's your idea, but it's still a bad idea. If you find a moment, please ask him to license as LGPL 2.1+ without conditions. > > If somebody cleans this up and integrates it > > into multimedia lib XYZ, it would be without a license grant... > > > > Diego > > MvH > Benjamin Larsson Ah, your quoting... Remember that you have to set a good example for the SoC newbies around here :) Diego _______________________________________________ FFmpeg-soc mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mplayerhq.hu/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-soc
