On 04-12-2018 07:10 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
2018-12-04 14:32 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi <gyando...@gmail.com>:
On 04-12-2018 06:38 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
2018-12-04 13:53 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi <gyando...@gmail.com>:
On 04-12-2018 06:15 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
2018-12-04 12:10 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi <g...@videolan.org>:
+@section Chromaprint
+
+FFmpeg can make use of the Chromaprint library for generating audio
fingerprints.
+It is licensed under LGPL version 2.1.
No other library is described like this.
Why are you adding legal statements that are unneeded?
I see licensing notes for libxavs2, libdavs2, "OpenCORE, VisualOn, and
Fraunhofer libraries", x264 & x265.
Is the situation for chromaprint and GME different than for the libs
above
Yes, very much so.
Please explain.
The license is only mentioned for projects that are not LGPL-compatible,
it is unneeded to mention LGPL-compatibility.
OK, so my licensing mentions are superfluous. But where's the risk? The
FFmpeg project has to stake a position on licensing of all components,
internal or external, for the sake of configuration. My commits simply
convey that into the docs - it doesn't create a new judgement or make
one where none existed.
If you continue to feel strongly about this, I'll remove those
sentences. But for the sake of a sane and consistent policy, can you
provide a positive reason why their removal is needed?
Thanks,
Gyan
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
