On Mon, 25 Aug 2025, 05:38 Baptiste Coudurier, <baptiste.coudur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 24, 2025, at 4:11 AM, Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel < > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> 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. > > In all serious matters, that’s called due diligence. > You're missing the part on the ML where Michael was insistent that the FFlabs lawyer had to be used. Until they didn't agree with him. 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".
