Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

LGPL relicensing #2033

Closed
wm4 opened this issue Jun 8, 2015 · 410 comments
Closed

LGPL relicensing #2033

wm4 opened this issue Jun 8, 2015 · 410 comments
Labels

Comments

@wm4
Copy link
Member

@wm4 wm4 commented Jun 8, 2015

FAQ

  • What, why?

    The mpv project (a MPlayer and mplayer2 fork) is relicensing its code base from GPLv2 or later to LGPLv 2.1 or later. For that, we're asking MPlayer, mplayer2, and mpv contributors to give us permission. This includes occasional or one-time contributors. For reasons why we are doing this and for details on the relicensing process see the sections below.

  • How do I give my permission?

    Posting something informal like

    I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to 
    the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 or later
    

    in this github issue or per email to wm4 (nfxjfg@googlemail.com) should be sufficient. (I've also sent a lot of mails via a private mail account, because the gmail one looks like it could be dismissed as spam too easily.)

    If you post on a github issue, and your github account doesn't show your real name or an email address you used for MPlayer development, please make sure to identify yourself so that we can link you to specific MPlayer contributions!

    If you don't want to give permission to relicense some specific parts, but don't mind that the core is relicensed in general, it's possible that we negotiate a list of files or a list of commits we're allowed to relicense. This could explicitly exclude parts you want to keep GPL. You could also choose to state that relicensing any code still remaining in mpv is fine (this would exclude anything that is still in MPlayer, but not mpv).

  • I never contributed much and I don't even know if my code is still there. Why did I get email about this / why was I pinged on github? Do I even have to give my permission?

    Some people say that their contribution was too minor and uncopyrightable, or that their code was replaced or refactored. This could be true. But we are not lawyers. It's not always sure what constitutes a minor/uncopyrightable change, or when new code is considered to be derived from some piece of replaced/refactored code. So getting as many agreements as possible is very helpful for us, even if the original authors of a patch think it doesn't matter, or it was a minor patch many years ago. Please respond to relicensing requests, even if you think it's not necessary!

    It's also possible that you were asked, even though you did not contribute to MPlayer directly. For example you could have contributed to a different project, and MPlayer incorporated some of its code. That code would still be copyrighted by you (at least partially), so we need to ask for relicensing permission.

  • Were the email for relicensing requests sent automatically?

    No. Every single of them was sent manually. They were sent only to people for which there was at least a chance that their agreement would be required.

  • Did the MPlayer project agree with this?

    Most of the MPlayer developers agreed (including original and current developers). Most contributors who have been asked so far agreed as well. See the status of MPlayer contributors.

  • Do you assume non-replies mean agreement (OpenSSL style relicensing)?

    No. Copyright law doesn't work this way. If someone doesn't reply, and he has copyright on parts we want to relicense, we will have to remove their code to succeed.

  • What happens if I don't agree?

    Then the entire relicensing of mpv will fail. If there are only some cases, we'll probably try to remove the code of contributors who have not agreed (if possible). My plan B would be writing a new player from scratch.

    Note that it might be fine to agree to relicensing of only some parts. We're mostly interested in relicensing the core, so a LGPL libmpv is possible. Also see the next FAQ entry below.

  • Will all of mpv be relicensed?

    Most likely only the core and components required for libmpv. For example, it's unlikely that the X11 windowing code, the V4L TV code, or the DVD code get relicensed. These parts will remain GPL, and will not be compiled in LGPL configurations. On the other hand, many patches touching X11 also added code to other parts of the player, such as adding new options (which would later be supported by other windowing code) - we'd still want to relicense those changes.

    Due to the aforementioned messy licensing state of the VO windowing backends, it looks like mpv CLI LGPL will be unusable on some systems (e.g. X11), while LGPL libmpv will hopefully be useful.

    In addition, the following parts were removed from mpv, and we won't ask for relicensing those parts: mencoder, the GUI, Linux 2.4 kernel drivers (!), dozens of decoder library wrappers, the win32 codec loader, ancient video outputs, filters, the build system, documentation in general, and imported libraries such as a bunch of mpeg decoders. Some libraries were moved to separate projects and have already been relicensed a long time ago, like libswscale and libass. mpv is highly reliant on FFmpeg for decoders and demuxers, which probably accounts for most of the core code removed.

  • Will the license of MPlayer change?

    Definitely not. To make it easier for us, we're skipping a lot of MPlayer code in the relicensing that is not used by mpv anymore (and that was not used to derive new mpv code from it). This is possible because mpv dropped large parts of MPlayer code (see previous question). All this means that even if you'd apply the relicensing agreements to MPlayer, you wouldn't get anything working out of it.

  • Do I lose the rights to my code?

    No, you retain copyright and own your code. The effect is merely that others (the mpv project) can use your code under LGPL instead of only the GPL.

  • I made contributions to MPlayer, but I wasn't contacted?

    Please reply to this github issue or send email to give your agreement/disagreement.

See also VLC's LGPL relicensing FAQ.

Reasons

The reason is mostly that the player got turned into a library (libmpv), and the associated problems of a GPL lib for a library user. Here's a detailed list of reasons why this is desirable, alternatives, and some discussion:

  • The main reason is easily the fact that mpv prefers embedding video by accessing the host application's OpenGL context. This means the host application has to link to libmpv directly and run in the same process as mpv, just for the GL context. This is called the opengl-cb API in libmpv. While technically possible in many cases, sharing some sort of video context (like an OpenGL context) over process boundaries is fragile and complex, so linking to libmpv is required.

    MPlayer on the other hand embeds an OS window over process boundaries (with the -wid option). This is becoming technically unfeasible, and the libmpv opengl-cb API sidesteps many issues with it.

    While mpv can still be embedded using the "old" method (and by using e.g. the JSON API), we prefer the opengl-cb, and don't want license issues to hamper this. Nor do we want the rendering method to have an influence on the application's license.

  • MPlayer always provided the slave mode, which allows closed source application to use MPlayer's playback capabilities. And there are even examples of this happening (MPlayerX). So MPlayer being GPL did not prevent it to be used from non-GPL applications. It follows that the MPlayer projects and its developers at least tolerate slave mode being used from non-GPL applications. I see no reason why this difference should be made just with the technical difference of in-process vs. out-of-process and C API vs. text protocol. Thus allowing libmpv to be used from non-GPL application is just natural. Relicensing to LGPL would achieve this.

  • GPL-incompatible dependencies such as OpenSSL are a big issue for library users, even if the library user is ok with the GPL. OpenSSL specifically is not compatible with the GPL, unless all involved GPL projects include an OpenSSL exception (but this is equivalent to a license change, so why not just use the less problematic LGPL). Note that not-GPL does not mean closed-source. There are many potential users who want to stick to other open source licenses that are not GPL.

  • Even many GNU libraries don't force GPL on the user (consider glibc, Guile, gettext, GNU lightning, GNU pth).

  • LGPL is almost like GPL, except it gives more freedom to the library user. This should be a rather inoffensive change (compared to e.g. changing it to BSD). Since (lib)mpv is a complete player, rather than something like a multimedia library, the "freedom" of libmpv isn't in danger either. For example, if you wanted to add a filter or a decoder to your playback chain, you would have to do that in libmpv itself (licensing the addition as LGPL), rather than making it a closed-source part of your evil proprietary application.

  • Even if libmpv were to stay GPL, it would not necessarily lead to more applications going open source. It's far more likely such an application would choose something like libvlc or gstreamer as backend instead. This could even happen with potential libmpv users which are open source, but not GPL, as its authors might want to escape from the complications of the GPL license. Likewise, existing non-GPL applications, which just want to integrate video playback as another feature, would obviously not be able to pick a GPL libmpv (libmpv isn't that attractive as they would relicense to GPL just to use it). My conclusion is that libmpv going LGPL would give back more to the open source community than a GPL libmpv.

  • VLC did it too, and nothing bad happened.

  • Parts of MPlayer code have been relicensed/"extracted" under more liberal licenses before: libswscale (LGPL), libass (ISC)

  • An exception for non-GPL libmpv usage might work. This would be a GPL linking exception. It'd require as much effort as a switch to LGPL, so we might as well change to LGPL.

  • Some libmpv user opinions: #2033 (comment) and #2033 (comment)

Relicensing process

We will ask mpv, MPlayer, and mplayer2 developers for their agreement. We will probably skip contributors who contributed documentation or website changes only (MPlayer has extensive documentation in multiple languages, all in the main code repository). We will also skip developers who have contributed only to now-removed code (such as vo_svga.c or libswscale).

We will also ask people who have contributed single patches a long time ago, as long as their code was used as base for further developments. It's important and appreciated that these people give their agreement as well.

So far I think it's ok to relicense a source file if:

  • all current contents of the file are written by authors who agreed with the LGPL switch

  • removed contents do not count, as long as new code was not "derived" from it (such as simple refactoring)

  • care has to be taken that lines, which merely went through cosmetic changes or refactoring, are considered as "current content" (i.e. mere git blame output is not necessarily meaningful)

  • Authors which only did minor cosmetic changes of some sort do not have a copyright on the file (consider code reindenting). Extreme care has to be taken here - copyright always sticks, even with simple changes. It's not clear when a change is uncopyrightable. Most seem to agree that entirely cosmetic changes, e.g. pure whitespace changes, are not copyrightable. Some set the bar for copyrightable much higher.

Further, some projects which have gone through relicensing claim there is a threshold above which relicensing can be done without the rest of the developers agreeing:

Relicensing plan

The actual relicensing will be done as follows:

  • Phase 1: broadly probe for consent (done)
    • ask everyone who submitted a patch to mpv
    • contact everyone who wrote a major piece of code and ask for permission
  • Phase 2: ask every contributor (mostly done, waiting for potential late replies)
    • go through the commit list, and look at every single of those ~44k commits
    • if the commit message says the patch was by someone else (or we know it was by someone else or copied from somewhere else), contact that external controbutor as well
    • if the code is most likely still present in mpv (directly or refactored), and not in code we don't want to relicense, make sure that person was contacted
  • Phase 3: actual relicensing (mostly done)
    • try to relicense each source file
    • go through every change to that file, and make sure that for each change (unless it was completely removed) the author was contacted and agreed
    • if that is not the case, do one of those things, depending on what's possible:
      • guard the code as GPL-only (so it won't be compiled for LGPL binaries)
      • remove/replace the code
      • declare the change as trivial
      • fail the relicensing and go with plan B, and write a new player
    • in some cases, code might have been copied from other source files or projects, which complicates this step
  • Phase 4: verification and finishing up (done, relicensing of some optional parts is still pending)
    • add a preliminary --enable-preliminary-lgpl3 configure option (done)
    • post to mplayer-dev-eng mailing list for anyone who wants to verify (done)
    • let it sit for a few weeks or so (done)
    • make the LGPL change final by renaming the configure option to --enable-lgpl and updating the main copyright notice (done)

More information

Other arguments pro-LGPL: #2033 (comment) #2033 (comment)

MPlayer developers status: #2033 (comment)

MPlayer thread: http://lists-archives.com/mplayer-dev-eng/39326-relicensing-mplayer-or-parts-of-it-to-lgpl.html

VLC LGPL switch reasons & FAQ (yes, they mostly apply to us too): https://www.videolan.org/press/lgpl.html

VLC reasons against GPLv3 (also mostly applies to us): http://www.videolan.org/press/2007-1.html

@wm4 wm4 added the meta:rfc label Jun 8, 2015
@wm4
Copy link
Member Author

@wm4 wm4 commented Jun 8, 2015

I'll make a little survey and ask who agrees with relicensing their code to LGPLv2+ for mpv. Doing this in this github issue is especially useful, because for some contributors I only have their github handle at best, and communication exclusively happened over Github (and partially IRC), this should work. (Also, this is the trivial part, as opposed to asking MPlayer contributors from ancient times.)

The following already agreed on IRC: @avih @pigoz @lachs0r @rcombs

The following includes all github users who posted a pull request on this project. Sorry if I got someone whose PRs were not actually accepted.

@svenstaro
Copy link
Contributor

@svenstaro svenstaro commented Jun 8, 2015

I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or later

@wm4
Copy link
Member Author

@wm4 wm4 commented Jun 8, 2015

Of the above people, please post in this issue with on of the following:

  • I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 or later
  • I disagree that my contributions are relicensed to LGPL
@jleclanche
Copy link
Contributor

@jleclanche jleclanche commented Jun 8, 2015

I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or later

2 similar comments
@Argon-
Copy link
Member

@Argon- Argon- commented Jun 8, 2015

I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or later

@grigorig
Copy link
Contributor

@grigorig grigorig commented Jun 8, 2015

I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or later

@maletor
Copy link
Contributor

@maletor maletor commented Jun 8, 2015

I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or later.

@MartinN13
Copy link

@MartinN13 MartinN13 commented Jun 8, 2015

I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are
relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or
later.

@gblach
Copy link
Contributor

@gblach gblach commented Jun 8, 2015

I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or later

@wm4
Copy link
Member Author

@wm4 wm4 commented Jun 8, 2015

(For the record, I have no idea whether the phrase I chose is legally binding. But it ought to be enough - it's as formal as you can get on github, and github is used as exlusive medium of communication here.)

@MadFishTheOne
Copy link
Contributor

@MadFishTheOne MadFishTheOne commented Jun 8, 2015

I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or later

3 similar comments
@veprbl
Copy link
Contributor

@veprbl veprbl commented Jun 8, 2015

I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or later

@EvanPurkhiser
Copy link
Contributor

@EvanPurkhiser EvanPurkhiser commented Jun 8, 2015

I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or later

@ahodesuka
Copy link
Contributor

@ahodesuka ahodesuka commented Jun 8, 2015

I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or later

@chengsun
Copy link
Contributor

@chengsun chengsun commented Jun 8, 2015

I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or later

EDIT: I see my only contribution was a one-line manpage fix, which has since been removed anyway.

@wm4
Copy link
Member Author

@wm4 wm4 commented Jun 8, 2015

Some users I "forgot" so far, or didn't highlight properly: @bjin @ChrisK2

@Nyx0uf
Copy link
Contributor

@Nyx0uf Nyx0uf commented Jun 8, 2015

I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or later

@percontation
Copy link
Contributor

@percontation percontation commented Jun 8, 2015

I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or later.

@ghost
Copy link

@ghost ghost commented Jun 8, 2015

I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or later

@Ionic
Copy link
Contributor

@Ionic Ionic commented Jun 8, 2015

I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or later, or, at your option, BSD 2-clause or BSD 3-clause.

@ghedo
Copy link
Member

@ghedo ghedo commented Jun 8, 2015

I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or later

1 similar comment
@hroncok
Copy link
Contributor

@hroncok hroncok commented Jun 8, 2015

I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or later

@paulguy
Copy link

@paulguy paulguy commented Jun 8, 2015

I haven't seen any of my contributions get included, but in case they do at a later time:
I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or later

@rossy
Copy link
Member

@rossy rossy commented Jun 8, 2015

I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 or later

@andre-d
Copy link
Contributor

@andre-d andre-d commented Jun 8, 2015

Ditto
On Jun 8, 2015 1:41 PM, "James Ross-Gowan" notifications@github.com wrote:

I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are
relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or
later


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#2033 (comment).

@lu-zero
Copy link
Contributor

@lu-zero lu-zero commented Jun 8, 2015

I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to an OSI-approved license, including GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or later.

If another license is chosen I retain my right to not accept such relicensing.

(In short, LGPL 2.1 and 3 are ok, MIT and BSD ok, any future LGPL 4 or whatever, you have to ask me again).

wm4 pushed a commit that referenced this issue Oct 10, 2017
Rename --enable-preliminary-lgpl2 to --enable-gpl. This concludes the
relicensing. Some things are still to do (relicensing some still-GPL
optional code), but we consider the code included by --enable-gpl to be
fully relicensed.

The relicensing was performed by asking every known author for
permission for relicensing it to LGPL version 2.1 "or later". If an
author could not be contacted or permission could not be obtained, and
the contribution was considered relevant for copyright purposes, the
affected code was either excluded from LGPL mode (not built), or removed
or rewritten. This is the standard in open source relicensing processes.

Keep in mind that using LGPL mode is still on the user's own risk. Even
though I claim that the relicensing was pretty clean and thorough
(measured on the standards of the open source community¹), and I
followed the advice of some actual experts, there is still a residual
uncertainty due to the fact that I'm not an all-knowing entity (authors
could have taken someone else's code and pretend it's their own) nor a
lawyer (meaning I might lack associated authority or expertise), and the
fact that the judicial system is far from deterministic. The relicensing
was performed merely to the best of my knowledge. I reject all
responsibility outside of that.

This commit also cleans up the "Copyright" file to reflect the finalized
relicensing process.

¹ Not to imply that the standards of commercial companies are much
higher. Some major tech companies get away with stuff I would not
consider clean.

See #2033.
@wm4
Copy link
Member Author

@wm4 wm4 commented Oct 10, 2017

The LGPL relicensing is "official" now, and git master now has a --enable-lgpl configure option.

I'd like to note that some users explicitly denied relicensing or agreed only to partial relicensing (such as a list of files, or explicitly not relicensing MPlayer-only code not in mpv anymore). This was respected, in some cases by making their code GPL-only, or rewriting or replacing it.

The relicensing isn't completely finished, though. There are still some bits and pieces that I'd like to relicense, see the following sections.

(Edit: ao_alsa was relicensed.)

Other authors who are unreachable

Some of them still potentially have code in the current mpv codebase (consequently excluded from LGPL mode), while for others all code was removed, but it would be good to have agreement from them since they were major contributors, even if it's not copyright relevant anymore.

  • Nick Kurshev (nick, nickols_k, Russian spelling uncertain): no contact
  • seru (<seru@gmx.net>): no contact
  • Dénes Balatoni: no contact
  • kiriuja (<mplayer-patches AT en-directo DOT net>): no contact, unknown if site owned by him
  • "adland" (<adland123 at yahoo dot com>): no contact
  • Carl Eugen Hoyos (cehoyos): disagrees to the relicensing

(Edit: relicensed some things affected by above as well, so the list is truly only a "would be nice to have")

@kkkrackpot
Copy link
Contributor

@kkkrackpot kkkrackpot commented Oct 13, 2017

kiriuja (): no contact, unknown if site owned by him

If you pronounce it in Spanish, kiriuja becomes a short for the Russian name Kirill (Cyril).

This person (Kirill Bulygin?) may be the author of KPlayer https://sourceforge.net/projects/kplayer/ , and the owner of en-directo.net and eloratings.net

@wm4
Copy link
Member Author

@wm4 wm4 commented Oct 13, 2017

Still not reachable, though. If that name is correct, there are probably multiple persons with that name.

@axic
Copy link

@axic axic commented Oct 13, 2017

Apparently Dénes Balatoni should be reachable via either pnis at coder _ hu, dbalatoni at interware _ hu or isten at inf _ elte _ hu.

@lez may know how to reach Balazs Tibor (tibcu) tibcu at sch _ bme _ hu

@wm4
Copy link
Member Author

@wm4 wm4 commented Oct 13, 2017

@axic hanks for the hints. Unfortunately, all these email addresses are long dead. For Dénes I found a gmail address, but I haven't gotten a reply in 6 months. For Balazs I found another email address too, but no reply in over 6 months.

@axic
Copy link

@axic axic commented Oct 13, 2017

Here's one more (probably you've found it) dbalatoni at programozo _ hu from FFmpeg commit c953e7976ec71c007bdc0aa0316398541eb260aa.

@wm4
Copy link
Member Author

@wm4 wm4 commented Oct 13, 2017

That one also bounces.

@axic
Copy link

@axic axic commented Oct 13, 2017

So weird that someone can go missing on the internets, even today 😉

@axic
Copy link

@axic axic commented Oct 13, 2017

Maybe @znuh is Benedikt Hunz.

@wm4
Copy link
Member Author

@wm4 wm4 commented Oct 13, 2017

Yeah, that can be weirdly tricky. We had cases where people responded to an email after over half a year. Some replied after I mailed them again after a longer time, because they overlooked the first email or forgot about it (and were quite friendly and immediately gave permission to relicense). Some people seemed completely gone from the internet, but could eventually be reached via linkedin or facebook.

@tmm1 was great with finding and contacting people, by the way.

@vasile-toncu-tr
Copy link

@vasile-toncu-tr vasile-toncu-tr commented Feb 8, 2018

Hello,

does anyone know it the one who contributed to libmpcodecs/vf_tinterlace.c - Michael Zucchi notzed@ximian.com back in 2003 gave the permission to change the parts he authored?

I have some troubles to find him.

Thanks,
-Vasile

@wm4
Copy link
Member Author

@wm4 wm4 commented Feb 8, 2018

Not on my list. This filter was removed from mpv in 2012, so no attempt was made to find the original author of it.

@JackoboLeChocobo
Copy link

@JackoboLeChocobo JackoboLeChocobo commented Nov 14, 2018

I see that my huge patches about dvdnav support weren't applied apparently ( and wasn't applied by MPlayer Team on the latest versions ) and, after tested the 2018-10-02 version of MPV on Windows 10, DVD support is still no functionnal perfectly ( impossible to go to menu for example ?! ).

I refuse that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to
the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 or later

@jeeb
Copy link
Member

@jeeb jeeb commented Nov 14, 2018

@JackoboLeChocobo I failed to see anyone proposing improvements to the dvdnav stuff as of late... https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+dvdnav+ .

If there's anything that should be reviewed/tested, feel free to open a PR or highlight me in one that was already created before and missed.

Also, for the record, I don't see you having any contributions in mpv yet? If you just wanted to yell at us, there are actual IRC channels for that as well as you can create PRs/issues. Please do not use this issue for that sort of activity as you are mostly spamming unrelated people with an e-mail.

Thank you.

@JackoboLeChocobo
Copy link

@JackoboLeChocobo JackoboLeChocobo commented Nov 14, 2018

@jeeb This issue, like said in the first post and on official MPlayer website, concerns contributions on MPlayer or MPlayer 2 or mpv.

For that, we're asking MPlayer, mplayer2, and mpv contributors to give us permission.

So if you have done more research about my contributions before, you would found that :
-> http://mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-dev-eng/2010-February/063512.html ( Fri Feb 5 17:54:07 CET 2010 )
->http://mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-dev-eng/2010-February/063573.html ( Sun Feb 7 11:38:33 CET 2010 )

So I have the right to talk about my contributions on MPlayer about the DVDNAV support, support that worked on MPlayer, but was never applied in the end by the team. However the contributions posts are present on MPlayer so I answered MPV team about that.

So I rewrite that i said before : I refuse that all my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 or later .

Note : Github is not the only website to publish projects ;3

@jeeb
Copy link
Member

@jeeb jeeb commented Nov 14, 2018

@JackoboLeChocobo if you did not take the hint, please stop using this issue for such discussion, there are better forums for that. Thank you for the references, I cannot find your name in the mpv git history nor in the mplayer contributor list either, so most likely these patches were not in the mplayer version utilized for the mplayer2/mpv forking.

Also - if you never had any of your contributions actually merged to mplayer, you are not a copyright holder in that project either, and thus you have no past contributions as per this issue. And nobody can take your patches to a project when that project was GPL and re-license them randomly. Thus you have literally no reason to be in this thread spamming dozens of people for no real reason, other than just being a jackass.

Please do not reply in this issue.

@JackoboLeChocobo
Copy link

@JackoboLeChocobo JackoboLeChocobo commented Nov 14, 2018

And nobody can take your patches to a project when that project was GPL and re-license them randomly.

If only it was indeed true... ^^" Redream is a good example...

Thus you have literally no reason to be in this thread spamming dozens of people for no real reason, other than just being a jackass.

I reply you about your last sentence that I quoted... And I see that I don't regret to inform you about my contribution/work on MPlayer ( even if for you people's contributions that were not merged on projects are not contributions... ).

I defend my past contributions : it is a good reason for me. I applied my right about my codes/contributions/works, that's normal for the huge time I worked on it.

However you have been informed about my choice after all. This will be my last answer. For information, screenshots of my and your answers are saved, in case of I see that my request is not respected and I see my contribution used in MPV project.

@CounterPillow
Copy link
Contributor

@CounterPillow CounterPillow commented Nov 15, 2018

Okay, I'll bite. Sorry for anyone getting yet another e-mail because of this.

Imagine how full of yourself you have to be to comment on an issue of a project you have no contributions to, to state that you don't want to relicense your patches to a previous project which weren't merged and won't ever be merged to either this project or the previous project, and then threaten with having screenshots as if you actually needed them.

At no point was your explicit dissent required, since only code that was written by people who have explicitly agreed to the relicensing was relicensed, or contributions which were deemed non-copyrightable due to their triviality. And to make this even more ridiculous, you were never even asked to give your opinion either way, because your code isn't even part of the project or the project it was originally submitted to. No, I do not believe anyone was going to yoink 8 year old dvdnav-related patches for mpv. They would not even remotely be applicable anymore.

@JackoboLeChocobo
Copy link

@JackoboLeChocobo JackoboLeChocobo commented Nov 15, 2018

Okay so I will quote again the first post on this ticket :

The mpv project (a MPlayer and mplayer2 fork) is relicensing its code base from GPLv2 or later to LGPLv 2.1 or later. For that, we're asking MPlayer, mplayer2, and mpv contributors to give us permission. This includes occasional or one-time contributors. For reasons why we are doing this and for details on the relicensing process see the sections below.

Do you have issues with words ? It is clearly written. Even if my contributions were not accepted, it is always contributions that I made for MPlayer, and that was saved always and available on MPlayer datas / tickets / messages.

. And to make this even more ridiculous, you were never even asked to give your opinion either way, because your code isn't even part of the project or the project it was originally submitted to. No, I do not believe anyone was going to yoink 8 year old dvdnav-related patches for mpv. They would not even remotely be applicable anymore.

I was one of the people who submitted a patch for a feature on MPlayer, and was not only me who have a contribution that was rejected. That's why forked projects exist...

Like you said before, I wasn't waiting you to said that for mpv project : I clearly said here that I refused that my patches / contributions for MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 or later for MPV project. If MPV team members / fans are not happy with my decision, it isn't my problem. End of the discussion.

@tmm1
Copy link
Contributor

@tmm1 tmm1 commented Nov 15, 2018

Contributors in the context of relicensing means copyright holders, i.e. authors who had code merged into any of the listed projects and whose code is still present in mpv.

Further, this issue is seeking approvals for relicensing. Disapproval is not necessary, because it is implicitly implied. We cannot use anyone's code under LGPL unless they explicitly agree to it.

@Cigaes
Copy link

@Cigaes Cigaes commented Nov 15, 2018

Disapproval is not necessary, but it is useful because implicit answers are uncertain: if somebody does not answer, maybe they just forgot or did not get the request. If somebody answers negatively, then we can move to something else.

So, can we just do that? JackoboLeChocobo gave a minor but relevant tidbit of information, i.e. that his hold patches should not be used in a LGPL project. Can we just make note of it and move on. Or are you so angry with him for not giving him his code that you need to punish him endlessly here? This is childish.

@stalkerg
Copy link

@stalkerg stalkerg commented Mar 1, 2019

How many people you still need to find?

@Akemi
Copy link
Member

@Akemi Akemi commented Mar 1, 2019

the relicensing is basically done. the most up to date list is this one i believe.

@tmm1
Copy link
Contributor

@tmm1 tmm1 commented Mar 1, 2019

The files still licensed under GPL are listed in the Copyright file: https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/blob/master/Copyright

@mathstuf
Copy link
Contributor

@mathstuf mathstuf commented Mar 1, 2019

Hmm, that shows one entry I think is interesting with no agreement:

1609 |   | UNKNOWN | mkurczew@gmail.com | Marcin Kurczewski,rr-

and below as agreed:

574 | ✓ | @rr- | rr-@sakuya.pl | rr-

@rr- are both of these you? Maybe doing a more thorough cross check of the table can find more entries like this?

@rr-
Copy link
Member

@rr- rr- commented Mar 1, 2019

@mathstuf Yes, it's me.

@wm4 wm4 closed this Sep 19, 2019
@axic
Copy link

@axic axic commented Sep 19, 2019

Did this go through in the end?

@wm4
Copy link
Member Author

@wm4 wm4 commented Sep 19, 2019

Mostly. Some parts, like the x11 VO, are still GPL.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
You can’t perform that action at this time.