Ronald S. Bultje <[email protected]> added the comment: Here's how it usually works: 1) we demand acknowledgement of (past violation). This is required, it is not optional, and it is important. Regardless of the state of the current version (it might even be compliant! who knows), past violations void the license (forever, until reinstated by us). We want him to be aware of this. 2) we demand solving the actual infringement of the current version. Last time I checked, it was still infringing, but I don't feel like checking until (1) is taken care of. 3) once the infringement is solved, we'll need monetary damages for the past infringement. (4) at this point, we might consider reinstating his license (generally, (3) and (4) would go together, i.e. Stanley pays us and we reinstate his license, as by a contract).
Note how these things work in order. Stanley would do well to start with (1), i.e. publically acknowledge the (past / present) violation and apologize deeply and humbly for that, stating his best intent to solve it as swiftly as possible. Once that's done and he's open to a discussion on how the free licensing is interpreted by the people that hold the copyrights of this project (i.e. me, Diego, Carl Eugen and all others that contribute to FFmpeg), then we can discuss together over how he would best fix his software to not be in violation. Lastly, we might then reinstate his license when financial compensation for past damages has been provided, as per (3) and (4). Until then, regardless of what you or he says, and regardless of the state of his software, he remains in violation. _____________________________________________________ FFmpeg issue tracker <[email protected]> <https://roundup.ffmpeg.org/roundup/ffmpeg/issue1162> _____________________________________________________
