On Sun, Jun 1, 2025 at 5:32 PM Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > 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. > > If Paul and everyone agrees, of course thats better and I would prefer > that too. > I don't agree. > But also keep in mind he didnt ask us if he can take our LGPL code. > "our" lgpl code? There is no "our" in a copyleft license. There is authorship that grants permission to use and take the code as needed (and defined by the license) regardless of us, them, or you. > > > That said, with open source and free software it is the morally correct > > > thing, if one makes changes to code, to return these changes to the > parent > > > project under the same license as the parent project. > > > This is morally the ONLY correct thing one can do. > Not unless the maintainers of the original project acted in such a way to split the community irreparably. It happened a bunch of times in the history of foss, for example with xfree, libreoffice and so on: the license change prevented "stealing" contributions and the better codebase with a more mature community took over. What is morally incorrect is trying to solve a social problem in a technical way. At any rate, maybe the TC can intervene and decide what to do? Thanks -- Vittorio _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
