Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [FFmpeg-cvslog] doc: chromaprint
On 04-12-2018 09:28 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: 2018-12-04 16:51 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi : On 04-12-2018 08:44 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: 2018-12-04 15:52 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi : On 04-12-2018 08:05 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: 2018-12-04 14:53 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi : My commits simply convey that into the docs - it doesn't create a new judgement or make one where none existed. It claims something (that may or may not be correct) instead of leaving the responsibility with the distributor (who alone has this responsibility). How does that square with the license mentions for the other libraries I listed? e.g. x264 is under the GNU Public License Version 2 or later Gyan P.S. Mentioned removed from my commits. Sorry for being - once again! - so unclear: My true concern is of course the wording about libfdk. Yesterday several people voiced their opinion that libfdk is not compatible with the LGPL, which we both do not share. But while I will be completely relaxed once a judge confirms that I am wrong, I wonder how you will react... FDK-AAC was a product developed by an entity for commercial purposes. Yes. (how is this related?) The odds of worries being realized are vastly different. But this is getting silly, so I'm out of this thread after this. BTW, FSF deems FDK to be under a free license, Possible. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#fdk even if remaining silent about LGPL compatibility. Then I am even more impressed that you guarantee this compatibility! No guarantees made. The sentence is, "To the best of our knowledge, it is compatible with the LGPL." which is copied from /LICENSE as was pointed out to you in http://www.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2018-June/231137.html Gyan ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [FFmpeg-cvslog] doc: chromaprint
On 04-12-2018 08:05 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: 2018-12-04 14:53 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi : My commits simply convey that into the docs - it doesn't create a new judgement or make one where none existed. It claims something (that may or may not be correct) instead of leaving the responsibility with the distributor (who alone has this responsibility). How does that square with the license mentions for the other libraries I listed? e.g. x264 is under the GNU Public License Version 2 or later Gyan P.S. Mentioned removed from my commits. ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [FFmpeg-cvslog] doc: chromaprint
2018-12-04 14:53 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi : > On 04-12-2018 07:10 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> 2018-12-04 14:32 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi : >>> On 04-12-2018 06:38 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: 2018-12-04 13:53 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi : > On 04-12-2018 06:15 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> 2018-12-04 12:10 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi : >> >>> +@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. Why do we "have" to take a position? Our configure script intends to help people not violating our copyright, it does not claim any particular position and it certainly doesn't claim some library is compatible with some software license. Otherwise, we would already be in serious trouble as configure in past did not protest using libraries that are not compatible with the GPL for binaries based on FFmpeg. > My commits simply convey that into the docs - it doesn't create > a new judgement or make one where none existed. It claims something (that may or may not be correct) instead of leaving the responsibility with the distributor (who alone has this responsibility). > 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? I feel very strongly about not giving legal advice (where I live, this is not allowed) and you are continually giving legal advice. Even if you are a lawyer (or otherwise entitled), I don't think it is a good idea to guarantee that some libraries are compatible with the LGPL. Carl Eugen ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [FFmpeg-cvslog] doc: chromaprint
On 04-12-2018 07:10 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: 2018-12-04 14:32 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi : On 04-12-2018 06:38 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: 2018-12-04 13:53 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi : On 04-12-2018 06:15 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: 2018-12-04 12:10 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi : +@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
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [FFmpeg-cvslog] doc: chromaprint
On 12/4/18, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > 2018-12-04 14:32 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi : >> On 04-12-2018 06:38 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >>> 2018-12-04 13:53 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi : On 04-12-2018 06:15 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > 2018-12-04 12:10 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi : > >> +@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. > > I start to wonder how good your insurance is... This is yet another attack from you. How much we need to tolerate this? ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [FFmpeg-cvslog] doc: chromaprint
2018-12-04 14:32 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi : > On 04-12-2018 06:38 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> 2018-12-04 13:53 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi : >>> On 04-12-2018 06:15 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: 2018-12-04 12:10 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi : > +@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. I start to wonder how good your insurance is... Carl Eugen ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [FFmpeg-cvslog] doc: chromaprint
On 04-12-2018 06:38 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: 2018-12-04 13:53 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi : On 04-12-2018 06:15 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: 2018-12-04 12:10 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi : +@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. Gyan ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [FFmpeg-cvslog] doc: chromaprint
2018-12-04 13:53 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi : > On 04-12-2018 06:15 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> 2018-12-04 12:10 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi : >> >>> +@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. Carl Eugen ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [FFmpeg-cvslog] doc: chromaprint
On 04-12-2018 06:15 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: 2018-12-04 12:10 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi : +@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 - other than the specific license? Sincerely, Gyan ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [FFmpeg-cvslog] doc: chromaprint
2018-12-04 12:10 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi : > +@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? Carl Eugen ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
