Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Cherry picks vs merges

["softworkz ." <softworkz-at-hotmail.com@ffmpeg.org>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Marton
> Balint
> Sent: Montag, 2. Juni 2025 09:41
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] Cherry picks vs merges
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2025, James Almer wrote:
> 
> > On 6/1/2025 4:23 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >>  Hi James
> >>
> >>  On Sun, Jun 01, 2025 at 02:27:37PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> >>>  On 6/1/2025 12:22 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >>>>  Hi all
> >>>>
> >>>>  almpeg is now merged upto 1 months ago. (and since last merge it
> >>>>  contains
> >>>>  bits of AGPL code)
> >>>>
> >>>>  The question now is, how does the community want to proceed from here?
> >>>  Full stop.
> >>>
> >>
> >>>  Not only you're trying to bypass explicit a license notice on
> >>>  technicalities,
> >>
> >>  This is a serious accusation.
> >>
> >>  Code is either under the LGPL license or it is not.
> >>  It cannot be sometimes under the LGPL license, the license headers
> >>  on the files in question, distrinbuted by Paul are unmodified
> >>  LGPL headers. There is no extra notice or anything in these headers.
> >>
> >>  If paul wants them to be GPL he can change these headers at any time.
> >>
> >>  And the "explicit license notice" you refer to is this:
> >>
> >>  "All Librempeg modifications, and any new files not available in FFmpeg,
> >>  are licensed under GPL v2,
> >>    unless stated otherwise."
> >>
> >>  And it IS stated otherwise in these files by the license header in these
> >>  files.
> >
> > This is the technicality i was talking about. The fact he copy-pasted a
> > boilerplate LGPL header in all new files being used as a way to invoke the
> > "unless stated otherwise" part of the notice.
> >
> > I'm not against merging his changes, and i apologize if what i said before
> > sounded like an accusation, but the way i want this to go forward is with
> him
> > being ok with it, and not us trying to find a way to workaround what was
> > seemingly his intention to license his changes a certain way.
> 
> +1. Yeah, Paul changing the license was not nice, but ffmpeg as a project
> merging his work against his will would not be nice either, even if it
> might be legally OK, it certainly would not be OK morally.
> 
> Regards,
> Marton
> _______________________________________________

Assuming for a moment, we would not care about moral behavior at all.
(which doesn't mean I don't)

What would happen if we merge everything?

- We would gain 2.5 years of work
- He will change all license headers
- The doors will be closed for all future

That leads to the strategical question: Is it worth doing that?

Well - I don't beiieve so. It requires thinking in longer terms.

We should negotiate and try to find an agreement, also be insisting
when it doesn't lead to an immediate result.

But as there appears to be contact now, we should probably just wait 
for the outcome anyway.

Best regards,
sw



_______________________________________________
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".