Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Legal Advice Was: [POLL][RFC] Merge vs Cherry pick for integration of changes

[Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2025, 05:38 Baptiste Coudurier, <baptiste.coudurier@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> > On Aug 24, 2025, at 4:11 AM, Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel <
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 24 Aug 2025, 11:56 Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel, <
> > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Kieran
> >>
> >> On Sun, Aug 24, 2025 at 07:53:45AM +0100, Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025, 21:33 Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel, <
> >>> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is the legal advice that i was given.
> >>>> The GA has the full text and that is much more detailed.
> >>>> Iam posting the relevant parts so the whole community can see it.
> >>>>
> >>>> "a claim that there is GPLv2 code in a file of
> >>>> FFmpeg origin that has the LGPLv2.1 license would be a breach of the
> >>>> FFmpeg's
> >>>> LGPLv2.1 license. While section 3 of the LGPLv2.1 would have allowed
> >> him
> >>>> to
> >>>> take the original FFmpeg files and change the license for them to
> >> GPLv2,
> >>>> he
> >>>> didn't follow the necessary steps to effectively change the license.
> >> So
> >>>> the
> >>>> original code he is building from is still under LGPLv2.1. Since code
> >>>> contributions to a copyleft work have to be under the /same /license
> >> as
> >>>> the
> >>>> code you are contributing to (Section 2(c), "You must cause the whole
> >> of
> >>>> the
> >>>> work to be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms
> >> of
> >>>> this
> >>>> License"), Paul's contributions to LGPLv2.1 files are under the
> >> LGPLv2.1
> >>>> license because he didn't exercise the option to change them to GPLv2
> >>>> first. A
> >>>> claim otherwise would be admitting he is in breach of the FFmpeg
> >> license."
> >>>>
> >>>> "You can safely assume that any new file he created with a license
> >>>> identifier in the file of LGPLv.2.1 is under the LGPLv2.1 license."
> >>>>
> >>>> "Paul's response to your use of his code may be to relicense his code
> >> under
> >>>> the AGPL,* but he cannot change the license retroactively - you would
> >>>> have to
> >>>> accommodate the AGPL license for any later changes you adopt, but not
> >> for
> >>>> any
> >>>> code you are using from before a license change."
> >>>>
> >>>> thx
> >>>>
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Can you confirm the FFlabs lawyer said something different?
> >>
> >> I cannot confirm this. I dont remember ever seeing the reply or the
> >> question.
> >>
> >> My communication with the FFlabs lawyer was through a intermediary
> >> developer,
> >> who was very busy and the mails where also terse
> >>
> >> IIRC i also had to ask multiple times to get any awnser
> >>
> >
> > Translation: The FFlabs lawyer didn't agree with my agenda and so I went
> > and found one that did.
>
> In all serious matters, that’s called due diligence.
>

You're missing the part on the ML where Michael was insistent that the
FFlabs lawyer had to be used. Until they didn't agree with him.

Kieran

>
_______________________________________________
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".