[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] License header consistency
Tue Aug 19 12:39:22 CEST 2008
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 02:34:32AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 01:45:44AM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:46:11PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:06:26PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 08:48:02PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > > http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-cvslog/2006-October/004072.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We have discussed this multiple times already. You choose to ignore
> > > > > > > > the argument again and again.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I repeatly ignored "sigh" and failed to guess what you meant?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You repeatedly committed no license headers or wrong license headers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We have had this whole discussion about license headers multiple times
> > > > > > and I have reiterated my arguments multiple times.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your arguments weight as much as everyone elses. You arent the boss here
> > > > > or something.
> > > >
> > > > WTF was that for now?
> > >
> > > You are talking as if you where the boss, i thought i remind you, that you
> > > are not.
> > > I can accept some arogance but at some point its too much.
> > I have never pretended any such thing. You are the one who is on a
> > rampage here, not me.
> You repeatedly committed no license headers or wrong license headers.
> We have had this whole discussion about license headers multiple times
> and I have reiterated my arguments multiple times.
> Sounded to me like some boss or parent scolding
It was merely a statement of fact.
> > > > > Our vote says 2:2 if i counted correctly. If theres a majority that
> > > > > prefers developers to check license headers instead of spending the
> > > > > minute per new file coding, i will follow that.
> > > >
> > > > So you are taking this vote seriously? I just heard you say:
> > > >
> > > > And this is a argument i agree with, a non existing license version
> > > > is bad and should be replaced
> > > >
> > > > So what is your vote exactly?
> > >
> > > my vote is NO, any VALID license that is compatible with the LGPL 2.1
> > > can be used.
> > > There is no need to use "ffmpeg" instead of "this library" or to use a
> > > specific address of the FSF nor is anyone forced to pick LGPL 2.1
> > You want to be able to pick any version of the LGPL?
> I do not want to have to spend time making the license binary identical
> to the currently accepted one.
> Ill surely keep an eye on lesser 2.0 and library 2.1
The solution is very simple: Just copy and paste any header from FFmpeg
and you will be safe. I have made sure that all headers are OK and
identical. And to be doubly-safe I fixed the SoC repo.
> > > This vote is NOT about invalid licenses.
> > > At the time at which i started the vote i was not aware of my mistake of
> > > commiting a licene header refereing to a non existing license. And had i
> > > been aware i would not have started the vote.
> > You are now aware of it, why do you continue?
> i voted just once :)
> After that we seem to have been rather successfull in getting the other to
> write yet another reply.
We are indeed supremely successful. Can we now get on to more
productive things? I just produced a useful refactoring patch as a
Look, I really don't understand why you got so worked up in the first
I have put considerable effort into getting all license headers
consistent (and the whole licensing situation in order). This includes
minor formatting issues and major things like referencing non-existing
In any case, the end goal was to create a situation which can be
sustained in the future *with minimal effort*. You can pick a file at
random, paste the header into a new file and be confident that you did
everything right in just a few seconds.
Now all I'm asking is that everybody please make the minimal effort of
investing a few seconds of copy and paste when adding a new file. We
are really talking about seconds here, just a tiny fraction of the time
it takes to write all of the code that new file will likely contain.
If you do not invest this minimal effort, you send the following message
to me: "thanks for nothing and screw you". You'll have to forgive me
when I feel this way and vent my frustration by replying "*sigh*" to one
of your commits.
We have talked about this several times and you keep disregarding or
forgetting the issues. What do you expect me to do? Be happy?
Show no reaction at all?
I will reiterate the arguments one more time, hopefully for the last
Inconsistent license headers have had the following problems in the
- mixed and contradictory license statements (one part of the header
speaks of GPL, another part of LGPL)
- non-existing license versions (GPL 2.1)
- confused license versions (Lesser GPL 2.0, Library GPL 2.1)
- missing "or later" clause
- obsolete FSF postal address
- inconsistent language (FFmpeg vs. this library vs. this program)
- inconsistent license boilerplate formatting
Some of these issues are more important than others, but none are
completely without merit. Files get reused in other projects and may
move to completely unrelated places. A simple line like "This file is
part of FFmpeg" can help a poor programmer find related code.
And trust me, when you end up looking at every single file of a project
to review the licensing situation (like I have done for FFmpeg and
MPlayer), consistently formatted license boilerplates save you a lot
But the point is that all of this can be avoided at practically zero
effort, because I have *already* done all the heavy lifting myself.
All that is necessary now is to copy and paste from within FFmpeg.
This takes seconds. Is that so much to ask for?
More information about the ffmpeg-devel