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. 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-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
