On 5/11/2019 8:08 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > Am So., 12. Mai 2019 um 01:00 Uhr schrieb Lynne <d...@lynne.ee>: >> >> May 11, 2019, 11:08 PM by ceffm...@gmail.com: >> >>> Am Sa., 11. Mai 2019 um 14:41 Uhr schrieb Lynne <> d...@lynne.ee >>> <mailto:d...@lynne.ee>> >: >>> >>>> >>>> May 10, 2019, 8:59 PM by >> ceffm...@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:ceffm...@gmail.com>>> : >>>> >>>>> Am Fr., 10. Mai 2019 um 19:54 Uhr schrieb Lynne <> >> d...@lynne.ee >>>>> <mailto:d...@lynne.ee>>> <mailto:>> d...@lynne.ee >>>>> <mailto:d...@lynne.ee>>> >> >: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> May 10, 2019, 4:14 PM by >> >> d...@lynne.ee <mailto:d...@lynne.ee>>> >>>>>> <mailto:>> d...@lynne.ee <mailto:d...@lynne.ee>>> >>> : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Patch updated again. >>>>>>> Made some more cleanups to the transforms, the tables and the main >>>>>>> context. >>>>>>> API changed again, now the init function populates the function pointer >>>>>>> for transform. >>>>>>> I decided that having a separate function would encourage bad usage >>>>>>> (e.g. calling >>>>>>> the function every time before doing a transform rather than storing >>>>>>> the pointer) when >>>>>>> we're trying to avoid the overhead of function calls. >>>>>>> Also adjusted file names to match the API. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Forgot to change an include, new patch attached. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If I understand the commit message correctly, some of the code >>>>> in the new file you are adding comes from other parts of FFmpeg. >>>>> I am surprised that there is no copyright claim on the top of this >>>>> new file. >>>>> Is there none on top of the files you took the code from? >>>>> >>>> >>>> The project isn't consistent with updating nor putting copyright headers >>>> on files so >>>> I'd rather keep the headers clean. Commit messages and authors are the >>>> only way to >>>> know who authored what. >>>> >>> >>> I don't think this is correct, but that is not the question: Copyright >>> law is (at least here) >>> very clear, if somebody put his name on top of the file, you must not >>> remove it, >>> especially not when moving code from one file into another. >>> >> >> "Here"? You're probably referring to some county's laws, those don't apply >> universally, >> especially not to the internet. >> Either way, that rule hasn't really been respected despite the major >> refactoring that has >> happened in the past so I don't see why it has to be respected now. > > Please point me to the commit you indicate so I can fix this (claimed) > copyright > violation. > >> The only parts I didn't rewrite are the power of two FFT, which I can NIH in >> a week if >> necessary, and in fact lately with the research papers I've recently read >> I'm thinking >> I should. > > Why don't you simply copy the copyright statement from the file where you > copied > it from instead (if there is one)? > Wouldn't that be much quicker than this email exchange? > > Carl Eugen
The commit message already states it takes parts of lavc's fft implementation, and the git story can't be rewritten, so authorship is known or can be easily figured out. Could we please focus on technical matters instead of wasting time in a back and forth about stuff like this? Thanks. _______________________________________________ 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".
