Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [ANNOUNCEMENT] almpeg

["Rémi Denis-Courmont" <remi@remlab.net>]

Hi,

Le 26 mai 2025 12:27:17 GMT+03:00, "softworkz ." <softworkz-at-hotmail.com@ffmpeg.org> a écrit :
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Rémi Denis-
>> Courmont
>> Sent: Montag, 26. Mai 2025 10:01
>> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>
>> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [ANNOUNCEMENT] almpeg
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Le 25 mai 2025 22:22:52 GMT+03:00, Michael Niedermayer
>> <michael@niedermayer.cc> a écrit :
>> >Note the license of this code is a bit wonky. The files have one
>> >license and theres another one in LICENSE.md.
>> >While I belives legally this allows one to choose either. I suggest
>> >you check this with a lawyer.
>> 
>> You do realise that FFmpeg does the exact same thing:
>> - have a top-level license file (with the same name even) explaining, or
>> trying to explain, which file is under which license,
>> - carry a copy of every GNU licenses as separate files.
>
>From my understanding and what I've read, a specific license in a source 
>file header is generally considered to take precedence over what's stated
>in any accompanying files.

That's also my understanding. If a file has an explicit license header, that applies to that file. Otherwise the default license in the ad-hoc licensing summary document applies, unless the file content cannot be copyrighted.

The verbatim license files provided at the top level are only there to meet the GNU license requirement to provide a copy of the license to the licensee. Their sole presence does *not* automatically imply any validity scope.

> (...) In turn, to properly re-license LGPL to GPL, the whole 
>source files need to be re-licensed under GPL and that needs to be 
>indicated as such.

This is a moot point IMO, and depends what you mean by "properly". You can always combine LPGL and GPL (same major versions). If the process of combination makes the different parts indistinguishable, e.g., compilation, then the result is GPL.

>Generally, I believe that we should at least try to come to 
>an agreement. The GPL may create a kind of one-way situation,

Switching FFmpeg to the GPL is a guaranteed immediate fork trigger. We have plenty of downstream open-source projects and FFmpeg contributors who need LGPL terms because their own project is LGPL or GPL-incompatible, and/or because their transitive downstreams are GPL-incompatible.

That would be a pretty dramatic decision that would need a GA vote, and is better avoided if one doesn't want to split the community further (this is *not* a position statement from me, just a predictive observation).
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".