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 Sun, 24 Aug 2025, 13:09 Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel, <
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:

> Hi Kieran
>
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2025 at 12:11:20PM +0100, Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel
> 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.
> >
> > It's funny how you are reluctant to post that lawyers opinion [because it
> > didn't agree with you] when you happily leak private discussions (e.g
> from
> > the CC) on this list all the time.
> >
> > To use Anton's words "tin-pot dictator" behaviour in action.
>
> Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2025 14:40:25 +0200
> From: Jean-Baptiste Kempf <jb@videolan.org>
> To: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
> Subject: Re: License question
>
> Hello,
>
> Lawyer says that, most likely,the COPYING file that comes after (newer)
> than the headers of the file prevails.
> So all his changes are GPLv2. :(
>
> BEst,
>
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2025, at 15:31, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > Hi jb
> >
> > any news ?
> > have you had time to ask the lawyer ?
> >
> > Its bad for FFmpeg to lack features that our competitors have.
> > (and thus also bad for FFlabs)
> >
> > librempeg has 36 decoders that FFmpeg does not have, id like to
> > get these into FFmpeg and even after the lawyer reply it will
> > still need likely a vote between cherry picking vs merging
> >
> > thx
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 10:34:27PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >> Hi jb
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 09:50:53PM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > "All Librempeg modifications, and any new files
> >> > not available in FFmpeg, are licensed under GPL v2, unless stated
> >> > otherwise."
> >> >
> >> > Where is that from?
> >>
> >> git show paul/master:LICENSE.md
> >>
> >> the files themselfs contain unmodified LGPL headers
> >>
> >> thx
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> --
> >> Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
> >>
> >> I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue.
> >> -- Xenocrates
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
> >
> > Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
> > temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety -- Benjamin Franklin
> >
> > Attachments:
> > * signature.asc
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Kempf -  President
> +33 672 704 734
> https://jbkempf.com/
>
>
> [...]
>

Thank you for confirming there is a major element of legal ambiguity in
merging Paul's code as LGPL. Not to mention moral concerns.

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".