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 <j...@videolan.org> > To: Michael Niedermayer <mich...@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-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
