[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] add acceptable licenses to development guidelines

[Michael Niedermayer]

Hi

On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 03:56:32PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 01:27:53AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> > Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> writes:
> > 
> > > Since this has recently been a hot topic of discussion, I propose we
> > > publish an official list of acceptable licenses, namely LGPL 2.1, GPL
> > > 2, both with an explicit "or any later version" clause or MIT.
> > >
> > > I'm attaching a draft of a patch.
> > >
> > > --- doc/ffmpeg-doc.texi	(revision 9603)
> > > +++ doc/ffmpeg-doc.texi	(working copy)
> > > @@ -1551,6 +1551,10 @@
> > >  
> > >  @enumerate
> > >  @item
> > > +   Contributions should preferrably be licensed LGPL 2.1, including an
> > > +   ``or any later version'' clause.  GPL 2 including an ``or any later
> > > +   version'' clause or MIT license are also acceptable.
> > 
> > I'd like to say that LGPL (or MIT) is preferred over GPL.  I don't
> > like for FFmpeg to get even more segregated license-wise than it
> > already is.  Cleanly separable parts that for whatever reason must use
> > GPL are acceptable, but this should not be a primary choice.
> 
> Updated wording attached.

ok

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

I hate to see young programmers poisoned by the kind of thinking
Ulrich Drepper puts forward since it is simply too narrow -- Roman Shaposhnik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20070713/16f53955/attachment.pgp>