LGPL relicensing #2033

Open
wm4 opened this Issue Jun 8, 2015 · 222 comments

Projects

None yet
@wm4
Member
wm4 commented Jun 8, 2015 edited

FAQ

  • What, why?

    The mpv project (a MPlayer fork) is trying to relicense its code base from GPLv2 or later to LGPLv 2.1 or later. For that, we're asking MPlayer and mpv contributors to give us permissions. 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.)

  • 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?

    Every contribution is important and affects copyright. Lots of code was refactored beyond recognition (we're looking at 16 years of development here!), but copyright still might stick. This is why it's important that everyone gives their agreement.

    Some who are asked did not contribute to MPlayer directly, but for example contributed to a different project, and MPlayer incorporated some of its code.

  • Did the MPlayer project agree with this?

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

  • 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. I'm mostly interested in relicensing the core. 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.

    Due to the messy licensing state of the VO windowing backends, it looks like mpv CLI LGPL will be unusable (i.e. would require compiling as GPL), while LGPL libmpv will hopefully be useful.

    In addition, the following parts were removed from mpv, and I won't ask for relicensing those parts: mencoder, the GUI, Linux kernel drivers, dozens of decoder library wrappers, the win32 codec loader, 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.

  • Will the license of MPlayer change?

    Probably not.

  • 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.

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:

  • 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).
  • User applications really should not be forced to use the GPL, because it's a library that provides a rather basic service (media playback). Even many GNU libraries rarely 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • While mpv still has a way to control the process externally (via JSON API), embedding the video window over process boundaries (like with -wid) is becoming technically unfeasible. While technically possible in many cases, sharing some sort of video context (like an OpenGL context) over process boundaries is fragile and complex. Using libmpv sidesteps all these issues, but requires the application to actually link against mpv. We don't want this to have an influence on the application's influence.
  • Alternatively, we could make an effort to add an OpenSSL exception to the mpv GPL license, but this would be just as much as effort as changing to LGPL, and solves just a small aspect of the whole issue.
  • Likewise, 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

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

I 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
  • 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)

I also wonder whether this can be done:

  • authors which only did minor cosmetic changes of some sort do not have a copyright on the file (consider code reindenting) (edit: extreme care has to be taken here - copyright always sticks, even with trivial changes, although it might be possible to ignore entirely cosmetic changes, e.g. pure whitespace changes)

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:

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 label Jun 8, 2015
@wm4
Member
wm4 commented Jun 8, 2015 edited

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
Contributor

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
Member
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
Contributor

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

@Argon-
Contributor
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
Contributor
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
Contributor
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

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.

@MagikBSD
Contributor
MagikBSD 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
Member
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
Contributor

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

@veprbl
Contributor
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
Contributor

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
Contributor

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
Contributor
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
Member
wm4 commented Jun 8, 2015

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

@Nyx0uf
Contributor
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
Contributor

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
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
Contributor
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
Member
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

@hroncok
Contributor
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
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
Member
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
Contributor
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
Contributor
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).

@avih
Contributor
avih 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

@atomnuker
Member

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.

@rr-
Member
rr- 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
Member
wm4 commented Jun 8, 2015

To clarify a few things...

  • I accidentally wrote "LGPL 2 or later" - I fixed it to "LGPL 2.1 or later", but this has no consequence, since 2.1 is "later" than 2, thus sub-licensing is allowed. However, the 2.0 version was called "GNU Library General Public License, version 2.0" ("Library" not "Lesser"), but I hope it's clear that these are the same anyway.
  • The plan is to strictly choose "LGPL 2.1 or later" if there's a change, not any other license.
  • If we go through with the change, and you disagree, it just means your code will not be compiled into a --enable-lgpl version. (But only if the code is independent enough.)
@wm4
Member
wm4 commented Jun 8, 2015

@lu-zero:

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.

(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).

You contradict yourself with the bit about LGPLv4, since with "LGPLv2.1 or later" you agree that LGPLv4 can be applied.

@olifre
Contributor
olifre 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

@m45t3r
Contributor
m45t3r 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, MIT License/BSD-2 clause License.

@juanfra684
Contributor

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.

@mixi
mixi 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.

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

LGPL 4 is not an OSI-approved license as today list since it does not exist and I do not agree to relicense to something unknown.

The "later" in this case covers the intersection of OSI-approved licenses and LGPL-licenses, thus 2.1 and 3. By considering my contributions MIT, you should be able to use them even in the case LGPL-4 is not something I agree with and I do not want my code be bound to.

@bjin
Contributor
bjin 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.

@spaam
spaam 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.

@CrisBRM
Contributor
CrisBRM 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.

@gs93
Contributor
gs93 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.

@gunmantheh
Contributor

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

@benf
Contributor
benf 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

@wm4
Member
wm4 commented Jun 8, 2015

@lu-zero: well, the standard LGPL license header is usually:

 * mpv is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
 * modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
 * License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
 * version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

(This is also what Libav does.)

So if you do not agree to LGPLv4, it would have to be something like "either version 2.1 of the License, or version 3.0". This is not very practical.

@wrl
Contributor
wrl 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.

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

I guess I can't convince you to pin versions (or later is quite evil) so:

"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, MIT License/BSD-2 clause License."

@Shudouken
Contributor

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

@jpalus
Contributor
jpalus 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.

@MoSal
Contributor
MoSal 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.

@qyot27
Contributor
qyot27 commented Jun 8, 2015

I'm not sure if anything I've contributed is still there, but:

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, or, at your option, MIT, BSD-2 clause, or ISC License.

@Bilalh
Contributor
Bilalh 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

@sam142
Contributor
sam142 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

@liuch
Contributor
liuch 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

@jaimeMF
Contributor
jaimeMF 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, or any other license.

@amosonn
Contributor
amosonn 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.

Why not just write version 3?

@haasn
Contributor
haasn 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

@foo86
Contributor
foo86 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.

@wsldankers
Contributor

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.

@rcombs
Contributor
rcombs commented Jun 8, 2015

(I've already said something to this effect on IRC, but to keep things in one place and have it a bit more formal, for my like 2 commits:)
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.

@ryanmjacobs
Contributor

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.

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:32 PM, foo86 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 2.1 or
later.

@eworm-de
Contributor
eworm-de 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.

@wm4
Member
wm4 commented Jun 8, 2015

Why not just write version 3?

LGPL 3.0 would make interoperability (probably) worse. Though it seems it would exclude us only from GPLv2-only libs: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#AllCompatibility

Anyway, LGPL 2.1+ is most practical.

@enkore
Contributor
enkore 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

@Cloudef
Contributor
Cloudef 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

@michaelforney
Contributor

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

@c-14
Contributor
c-14 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

@gam-phon
Contributor
gam-phon 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

@frau
Contributor
frau 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

@Necior
Contributor
Necior 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.

(I'm glad you asked.)

@kevmitch
Member
kevmitch 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

@ricardomv
Contributor

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

@keeperofdakeys
Contributor

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

@blinry
Contributor
blinry 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.

@viveksjain
Contributor

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!

@andlang
andlang 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!

@moskvax
Contributor
moskvax 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.

@TimothyGu
Contributor

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

@selsta
Contributor
selsta commented Jun 9, 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.

@qmega
Contributor
qmega commented Jun 9, 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.

@m45t3r
Contributor
m45t3r commented Jun 9, 2015

It would be interesting to save this thread somewhere. While the code is forever, GitHub is not (someday in the future it may appears some site that takes over GitHub, and this thread would be lost if GitHub closes).

@haasn
Contributor
haasn commented Jun 9, 2015

My e-mail archives are forever!

On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 18:31:58 -0700, Thiago Kenji Okada notifications@github.com wrote:

It would be interesting to save this thread somewhere. While the code is forever, GitHub is not (someday in the future it may appears some site that takes over GitHub, and this thread would be lost if GitHub closes).


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#2033 (comment) part: text/html

@m45t3r
Contributor
m45t3r commented Jun 9, 2015

Yeah, forgot that GitHub forward an e-mail to each user linked to a thread.

@ChrisK2
Member
ChrisK2 commented Jun 9, 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

@shdown
Contributor
shdown commented Jun 9, 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.

@Skyrainfit
Contributor

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

@scarabeusiv
Contributor

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

@ion1
Contributor
ion1 commented Jun 9, 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.

@xylosper
Contributor
xylosper commented Jun 9, 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.

Thank you for not forgetting me :)

@jon-y
Contributor
jon-y commented Jun 9, 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.

@wm4
Member
wm4 commented Jun 9, 2015

@xylosper:

Thank you for not forgetting me :)

How could I? You made some relatively significant contributions.

@agiz
Contributor
agiz commented Jun 9, 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.

@agiz - Ziga Zupanec

On 6/9/15, V. Lang notifications@github.com wrote:

@xylosper:

Thank you for not forgetting me :)

How could I? You made some relatively significant contributions.


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

@henry0312
Member

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.

@torque
Contributor
torque commented Jun 9, 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.

@mati75
Contributor
mati75 commented Jun 9, 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

@otommod
Contributor
otommod commented Jun 9, 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

@divVerent
Member

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

@ravenexp
Contributor

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

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:21 PM, divVerent 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).

@wm4
Member
wm4 commented Jul 27, 2015

http://bugmenot.com/view/github.com

Yeah, but we don't know if this worked at some point. Now that he actually posted again, it seems somewhat unlikely that he isn't a single person, but I'd still like confirmation.

@bugmen0t

This is a shared account. I'm not the original author of that code. I don't know how this works legaly to relicensing. Better rewrite this part of the code. I will remove the relicensibg agreement message. Sorry.

@bugmen0t

I think the original author doesn't use this github account anymore, it' old. The login and pass used to be hosted on bugmenot as a public account. It's on bugmenot.com/view/gist.com now.

@hsimons
hsimons commented Jul 28, 2015

Should I remove or keep bugmen0t on the list?

@Kovensky
Member

I agree that my past GPL contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 or later, or, at your option, MIT License/BSD-2 clause License.

I don't see the need to relicense the 2-clause BSD code (e.g. Parse::Matroska) to LGPL, as it's more permissive than LGPL, but I could be convinced.

Hopefully I didn't miss anything above.

@wm4
Member
wm4 commented Jul 28, 2015

I don't see the need to relicense the 2-clause BSD code (e.g. Parse::Matroska) to LGPL, as it's more permissive than LGPL, but I could be convinced.

I'm only aiming to relicense GPL code. LGPL compatible licenses are ok.

@bugmen0t

Hey, I just heard about this.

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.

@lucy
Contributor
lucy commented Dec 15, 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
Member
wm4 commented Dec 15, 2015

@bugmen0t: sine you are a shared account, it's impossible to know what person or pull request you represent, and thus relicensing is impossible. We will probably have to remove your code (and that of your co-users) if it gets into the way of relicensing.

@rrooij
Contributor
rrooij commented Dec 15, 2015

@wm4 Aren't licensing issues irrelevant when someome has not a single identity? I don't know how this works but it seems madness to rework all changes that it made because a throwaway account was used.

Dolphin had similar issues as far as I can remember. I'm not sure, but not everyone had to agree with the license change for it to successfully happen.

@grigorig
Contributor

Another thing to consider is the threshold of originality. A trivial change (e.g. typo correction, non-functional change such as spacing/indenting) is not actually copyrightable.

@wm4
Member
wm4 commented Dec 16, 2015

Opinions how many contributors need to agree vary. I know Mozilla considered 95% of the source code has to be covered, while VLC assumed 99.9%. Since this is open source, and the license change is rather inoffensive (GPL to LGPL; for a project that wasn't a library originally, but which could be used by closed source programs through slave mode), I'd say it's not so important to get full coverage.

But in the end, there could always be someone appearing who wasn't asked or who didn't respond, and who says he doesn't agree with the license change. How do you handle this if the contribution was anonymous? Just because it was anonymous, it doesn't mean the copyright is void.

@amosonn
Contributor
amosonn commented Dec 16, 2015

I think if someone deliberately posted code anonymously, which is the case
with the bugmenot account, then that reasonably waives their claim to
copyright.
On Dec 16, 2015 5:50 PM, "V. Lang" notifications@github.com wrote:

Opinions how many contributors need to agree vary. I know Mozilla
considered 95% of the source code has to be covered, while VLC assumed
99.9%. Since this is open source, and the license change is rather
inoffensive (GPL to LGPL; for a project that wasn't a library originally,
but which could be used by closed source programs through slave mode), I'd
say it's not so important to get full coverage.

But in the end, there could always be someone appearing who wasn't asked
or who didn't respond, and who says he doesn't agree with the license
change. How do you handle this if the contribution was anonymous? Just
because it was anonymous, it doesn't mean the copyright is void.


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

@mathstuf
Contributor

Berne Convention says that any expression is automatically under copyright. The real thing that would make it ignorable isn't that it isn't copyrighted, but that it's basically unenforceable. How would someone actually prove that they were the one to contribute that code on that day using the account?

@haasn
Contributor
haasn commented Dec 16, 2015

But in the end, there could always be someone appearing who wasn't asked or who didn't respond, and who says he doesn't agree with the license change. How do you handle this if the contribution was anonymous? Just because it was anonymous, it doesn't mean the copyright is void.

What I want to know is the consequences of rewriting affect code in the event this happens, rather than necessarily right now. Since I'm operating under the assumption that literally nobody will care about the exact legal status of these (e.g. bugmen0t's) contributions in practice, the best course of action might just be to assume it's reasonable to include them in the relicensing and reconsider if anybody actually ever contests it.

Unfortunately, what I don't know is how stringent any relevant punishments would be in the event that somebody does decide mpv breaks some form of law, or rather, how lax our “well, we'll fix that then” period would be. (I also have no clue how that would even be enforced in a many-faceted multi-contributor project spanning a large number of international borders...)

Also, I think it's fair to assume that after a sufficient period of time and activity, anybody who is simultaneously e.g. a prehistoric contributor of MPlayer/mplayer2 code and still cares about the status of this codebase will have heard about the LGPL licensing issue. At some level we're going to have to rely on the fact that “everybody we can no longer identify or reach no longer cares” if we want anything to get done at all.

@wm4
Member
wm4 commented Jan 19, 2016

Some more contributors with github accounts who were not mentioned yet:
@presto8: for a change in ipc.c
@dilaroga: videotoolbox
@zekica: a fix in vf_vavpp.c

@wm4
Member
wm4 commented Jan 19, 2016

On side note, the Dolphin/Mozilla assumption seems to be incorrect for us.

I've also started a thread on the MPlayer developer mailing list: http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-dev-eng/2015-December/073259.html
Of the people who replied, 3 agreed to relicense their changes, and 1 didn't answer this question - of those 4. 3 claim it's very hard to impossible, and I guess I have to agree with them. I don't even know how to map the svn handles to email addresses, and I'd have to harass people for commits they've done over a decade ago.

Anyway, I've made another step with relicensing mpv/mplayer2-only source files: 8a9b643

@zekica
Contributor
zekica commented Jan 19, 2016

I agree that my contributions are relicenced under LGPL v2 (whether or not they are copyrightable).

@zekica
Contributor
zekica commented Jan 19, 2016

I agree that my contributions are relicenced under LGPL v2 or later (whether or not they are copyrightable).

@presto8
presto8 commented Jan 20, 2016

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.

@dilaroga

I agree that my past contributions to mpv are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) v2 or later.

@zymos
Contributor
zymos commented Feb 16, 2016

I agree that my past contributions to mpv are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) v2 or later.

@jbeich jbeich referenced this issue in u8sand/Baka-MPlayer Mar 22, 2016
Open

Upload to Debian #196

@phiresky
phiresky commented Sep 4, 2016

I was curious, so I decided to do a full git blame to see whose code is in current master.

The history seems to be fairly complete. Git blame should track any moved or copied lines of code (with at least 20 characters), while ignoring whitespace changes.

There are 288 unique emails that have lines in the current code base. So far, 153336/179918 lines have agreed. (85%)
2016-09-04-060616_982x807_scrot

Looks like @wm4 basically rewrote everything ;).

Looking at the largest commits, reverts are not tracked (especially 23a7257), so one would have to check a little deeper how correct the data is.

Here is the full list and the commands I used to produce it: https://gist.github.com/ (obscuring this link because it contains lots of mail addresses) phiresky/d8127643f352899fa595ae8f81e16c21

@wm4
Member
wm4 commented Sep 4, 2016 edited

It's not that simple, because simply moving or reformatting code, or even refactoring it does not remove its copyright.

@phiresky
phiresky commented Sep 4, 2016

simply moving or reformatting

Moving pieces of code should be tracked fine by git blame -C -M -w (not limited to file level, also works when a single function is moved to a different file).

True about refactoring. My logic was that for most larger refactorings at least some lines would stay the same and would thus be tracked and correctly attributed by git. This is not legally sound of course, but might be helpful as a point of reference.

@rossy
Member
rossy commented Sep 5, 2016

Looks like @xnoreq has not been mentioned yet (author of the IDropTarget implementation in w32_common.c, @43aafc6.)

I want to move this code to a separate file, so I was wondering whether to put a GPL or LGPL header on it.

@xnoreq
Contributor
xnoreq commented Sep 5, 2016

Feel free to relicense it under LGPL.

@rossy
Member
rossy commented Sep 5, 2016

@xnoreq Thanks

@tmm1
Contributor
tmm1 commented Sep 25, 2016

@phiresky Your gist shows me as not having agreed, however all my contributions occurred after LGPL was required for new commits.

@wm4
Member
wm4 commented Sep 25, 2016 edited

Pinging some more github accounts to ask them whether they agree to relicense their MPlayer/mpv contributions to LGPL v2.1 or later. Some of them might have already agreed, but it's easier this way. (Sorry if you got asked more than once.)

@q66 @grawity @Kagami @RKalkani @dodo @elevengu @ewtoombs @gabrielrcp @jcowgill @tcatm @stianeikeland @tpetazzoni @trUSTssc @kvaidas @wgmk @jaseg @dirb @Coacher @linkmauve @Nikoli @rhlee @niltsh @Gusar321 @quilloss @brgmnn @jashandeep-sohi @pa4 @isyangban @lzmths @BtbN @dequis @jwilk @mfcc64 @bitingsock @yan12125 @igv @sCreami @bucaneer @Floens @teohhanhui @stepshal @jostillmanns @cjmayo @eduardosm @dubhater @Akemi @archenemies @wiiaboo @maniak1349 @Themaister

@wm4
Member
wm4 commented Sep 25, 2016

Some more, because github apparently has a maximum notify limit per post: @jeeb @xyzz @chneukirchen

@wm4
Member
wm4 commented Sep 25, 2016

During this relicensing thing, I've been asked if there are any outside developers (or projects) specifically interested in a LGPL libmpv. Anyone?

@BtbN
Contributor
BtbN commented Sep 25, 2016

I'm perfectly OK with that!

@Floens
Contributor
Floens commented Sep 25, 2016

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

@Kagami
Contributor
Kagami commented Sep 25, 2016

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

@stianeikeland
Contributor

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.

@Coacher
Contributor
Coacher commented Sep 25, 2016

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

@ghost
ghost commented Sep 25, 2016

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

@zekica
Contributor
zekica commented Sep 25, 2016

I have already agreed to licence change, but here is it again:

I agree that my past contributions to mpv are relicensed to the GNU Lesser
General Public License (LGPL) v2 or later.

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Stian Eikeland 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 2.1 or
later.


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#2033 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA2gG0prJ_szE1_yw0TM7-2iw4IGCRJ-ks5qtlZcgaJpZM4E78P8
.

@wm4
Member
wm4 commented Sep 25, 2016 edited

For completeness, here's the list of MPlayer developers who have replied so far. I'm updating this post as I get new email replies.

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

Have agreed and had a MPlayer svn/cvs username:

  • al
  • al3x, alex
  • albeu
  • arpi
  • atlka
  • attila
  • ben
  • bertrand
  • bircoph
  • cigaes
  • cladisch
  • compn
  • diego
  • eugeni
  • eyck
  • gabucino
  • gpoirier
  • henry
  • ib (except code under MPlayer's gui subdirectory)
  • ivo
  • joey
  • komh
  • ksorim
  • lgb
  • michael (under some conditions: http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-dev-eng/2016-September/073535.html)
  • mosu
  • nexus
  • nicodvb (some core files - did not agree to relicense other parts, esp. encoding, dvb, dvd)
  • nplourde
  • ods15
  • pl
  • pontscho
  • reimar
  • reynaldo
  • rsf
  • rtogni, rtognimp
  • szabi, szabii
  • tack
  • uau
  • ubitux
  • vayne (also contributed patches by mail as Erik Lunchpail)

Have agreed (no username or have not contributed to MPlayer directly):

  • Andy Lo A Foe
  • Kilian A. Foth
  • Rik Hemsley
  • Bryan Henderson
  • Jens Hoffmann
  • Loring Holden
  • Robert Juliano
  • Anton Khirnov
  • Kmarty
  • Gerd Knorr
  • Tomas Konir
  • Kevin DeKorte
  • Pedro Larroy Tovar
  • Oskar Liljeblad
  • Jack Moffitt
  • Alexander Neundorf
  • Christian Ohm
  • Lennart Poettering
  • Chris Roccati
  • Steven M. Schultz
  • Stanley Seibert
  • Tristan Seligmann
  • Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
  • Adrian Stutz
  • Panagiotis Issaris
  • Timothy J. Wood
  • Artur Zaprzala

MPlayer developers who have replied, but have not given a final answer, and want to think about it:

  • joyping

Isn't giving a definitive answer:

  • cehoyos

Have disagreed with relicensing:

  • anders
  • iive (agrees to LGPL 3.0 or later, but not LGPL 2.1 or later)
  • laaz

A few of these agreements were received via the mplayer-dev-eng mailing list, a few on IRC or in this github issue, and most via personal mail.

@jwilk
Contributor
jwilk commented Sep 25, 2016

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.

@bucaneer
Contributor

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.

@sCreami
Contributor
sCreami commented Sep 25, 2016
@cjmayo
Contributor
cjmayo commented Sep 25, 2016

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.

@eduardosm

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.

@chneukirchen
Contributor

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

(Note that my particular contribution is already ISC licensed and probably broken anyway and likely should be removed... ;))

@teohhanhui
Contributor

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.

On Sun, 25 Sep 2016, 18:56 V. Lang, notifications@github.com wrote:

Pinging some more github accounts to ask them whether they agree to
relicense their MPlayer/mpv contributions to LGPL v2.1 or later. Some of
them might have already agreed, but it's easier this way. (Sorry if you got
asked more than once.)

@q66 https://github.com/q66 @grawity https://github.com/grawity
@Kagami https://github.com/Kagami @RKalkani
https://github.com/RKalkani @dodo https://github.com/dodo @elevengu
https://github.com/elevengu @ewtoombs https://github.com/ewtoombs
@gabrielrcp https://github.com/gabrielrcp @jcowgill
https://github.com/jcowgill @tcatm https://github.com/tcatm
@stianeikeland https://github.com/stianeikeland @tpetazzoni
https://github.com/tpetazzoni @trUSTssc https://github.com/trUSTssc
@kvaidas https://github.com/kvaidas @wgmk https://github.com/wgmk
@jaseg https://github.com/jaseg @dirb https://github.com/dirb @Coacher
https://github.com/Coacher @linkmauve https://github.com/linkmauve
@Nikoli https://github.com/Nikoli @rhlee https://github.com/rhlee
@niltsh https://github.com/niltsh @Gusar321
https://github.com/Gusar321 @quilloss https://github.com/quilloss
@brgmnn https://github.com/brgmnn @jashandeep-sohi
https://github.com/jashandeep-sohi @pa4 https://github.com/pa4
@isyangban https://github.com/isyangban @lzmths
https://github.com/lzmths @BtbN https://github.com/BtbN @dequis
https://github.com/dequis @jwilk https://github.com/jwilk @mfcc64
https://github.com/mfcc64 @bitingsock https://github.com/bitingsock
@yan12125 https://github.com/yan12125 @igv https://github.com/igv
@sCreami https://github.com/sCreami @bucaneer
https://github.com/bucaneer @Floens https://github.com/Floens
@teohhanhui https://github.com/teohhanhui @stepshal
https://github.com/stepshal @jostillmanns
https://github.com/jostillmanns @cjmayo https://github.com/cjmayo
@eduardosm https://github.com/eduardosm @dubhater
https://github.com/dubhater @Akemi https://github.com/Akemi
@archenemies https://github.com/archenemies @wiiaboo
https://github.com/wiiaboo @maniak1349 https://github.com/maniak1349
@Themaister https://github.com/Themaister @jeeb @xyzz @chneukirchen


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#2033 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAhf6zomqf28tAkkzGqXUq3BoqTyCE8Lks5qtlNvgaJpZM4E78P8
.

@dubhater
Contributor

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.

@grawity
Contributor
grawity commented Sep 25, 2016

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.

@wm4
Member
wm4 commented Sep 25, 2016

(Note that my particular contribution is already ISC licensed and probably broken anyway and likely should be removed... ;))

IMO rather a problem with the sndio API than with your code...

@jcowgill
Contributor

I think I've already agreed, but if not:

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.

@wiiaboo
Contributor
wiiaboo commented Sep 25, 2016

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.

@q66
Contributor
q66 commented Sep 25, 2016

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.

@Gusar321
Contributor

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.

@xyzz
Contributor
xyzz commented Sep 25, 2016

I'm pretty sure that my code is either trivial (build scripts changes) or already under LGPL (https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/blob/master/audio/out/ao_opensles.c#L8) but just in case:

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

@jeeb
Contributor
jeeb commented Sep 25, 2016

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.

@yan12125
Contributor

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.

@Akemi
Member
Akemi commented Sep 25, 2016

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

@dequis
Contributor
dequis commented Sep 25, 2016

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

@isyangban
Contributor

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.

@enoposix
Contributor
enoposix commented Sep 25, 2016 edited

During this relicensing thing, I've been asked if there are any outside developers (or projects) specifically interested in a LGPL libmpv. Anyone?

@wm4 I would be interested in an LGPL libmpv. LGPL is generally less of a headache to work with, one usecase discussed with @xyzz was the possibility of mpv for iOS, and that GPL is against the terms of the App Store.

@igv
Contributor
igv commented Sep 25, 2016

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.

@jeeb
Contributor
jeeb commented Sep 25, 2016

There are IMHO multiple ways to reason regarding the LGPL'ification of libmpv.

  • libmpv's source code will still have to be released in the same way as the requirement goes with GPL.

  • Rather than a stand-alone binary that mplayer/mplayer2 were, libmpv has become a core playback library in the vein of libvlc, so LGPL as a license has started making sense (although this is purely IMHO).

  • The dependency chain licensing gets simplified. For example, most libmpv users most probably will have a chain of more liberal or LGPL dependencies (such as FFmpeg - almost none of the decoding related features are under enable-gpl), and libmpv itself is the only GPL one.

    Moving to LGPL thus removes one additional level of licensing in the dependency chain (even though GPL pretty much just overrides everything as soon as it's brought in, so in that sense you only have to make sure all of your dependencies are GPL compatible - like OpenSSL for example).

    • And yes, I am aware of there being a movement regarding re-licensing of OpenSSL.
  • It widens the area where libmpv can be utilized as a core playback library, due to the inability of using GPL software in the dependency chain. This affects both open source and closed source software that would utilize this library.

  • It would ease the possible separation of the OpenGL renderer into its own library, which has been a point of interest for VideoLAN at least. As far as I understand the renderer code is already widely LGPL, but if the whole of libmpv becomes LGPL the issue becomes simpler licensing-wise.

    • And yes, I understand that the actual technical task of making this separation would be the more time consuming part if no licensing issue would exist.
@bitingsock
Contributor

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.

@tmm1
Contributor
tmm1 commented Sep 25, 2016

Pinging some github accounts associated with old svn commits to ask them whether they agree to relicense their MPlayer/mpv contributions to LGPL v2.1 or later.

@rdoeffinger (reimar)
@cigaes (cigaes)
@DonDiego (diego)
@Gabrov (gabrov)
@sttz (adrian)

@jaseg
Contributor
jaseg commented Sep 25, 2016

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.

@archenemies
Contributor

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

@gabrielrcp
Contributor

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.

@rhlee
Contributor
rhlee commented Sep 25, 2016

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.

@tcatm
Contributor
tcatm commented Sep 25, 2016

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.

@maniak1349
Contributor

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.

@quilloss
Contributor

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.

@RKalkani
Contributor

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.

@axic
axic commented Sep 27, 2016

@wm4:

For completeness, here's the list of MPlayer developers who have replied so far. I'm updating this post as I get new email replies.

I think you should include here a link to the email thread (such as gmane).

@wm4
Member
wm4 commented Sep 27, 2016

Done. I used "some other site", because gmane is currently in limbo.

@rikkus
rikkus commented Sep 27, 2016

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.

@wm4 wm4 changed the title from Possible LGPL relicensing to LGPL relicensing Sep 28, 2016
@tmm1
Contributor
tmm1 commented Oct 24, 2016
@Themaister
Contributor

Dunno what my contribution ever was, but whatever. :p

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.

@wm4
Member
wm4 commented Jan 25, 2017

Pinging @verm

@rdoeffinger

Hi, sorry for the delay. While I'm maybe not 100% convinced of the usefulness, I have nothing against LGPL and am happy to let you try where this leads you to, so:
I agree that my past contributions to MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 or later

@mfcc64
Contributor
mfcc64 commented Jan 27, 2017

I agree that my past contributions to mpv are relicensed to the GNU Lesser
General Public License (LGPL) v2 or later.

@AlbanBedel

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

@wm4
Member
wm4 commented Feb 7, 2017

@AlbanBedel thank you! I wasn't sure whether I was able to reach you, but apparently it worked out.

And of course thanks to everyone else who agreed.

@sttz
sttz commented Feb 9, 2017

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

@rossy
Member
rossy commented Feb 9, 2017

Ping @rocky, since they are one of the authors of this patch: 0538ed8

@rocky
rocky commented Feb 9, 2017 edited

The small configuration code in 0538ed8 is fine for LGPL, but the bigger issue is that the library libcdio-paranoia is GPL 3.0 and that's not going to change.

So I guess you may want to remove the ability to do CD-paranoia via libcdiio-paranoia here.

@rossy
Member
rossy commented Feb 9, 2017

@rocky Understood. Thanks!

@wm4
Member
wm4 commented Feb 12, 2017

Pinging @takis for permission to relicense his MPlayer contributions to LGPL.
(Asked by mail, but didn't get a reply.)

@mithrandi

I hereby grant a license to my past contributions to MPlayer under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 or later. Additionally, I grant a license under the http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt (also known as "MIT") license.

(I don't expect the last one to be of any use by itself, but maybe someone will find it handy in the future)

@takis
takis commented Feb 16, 2017

I mostly agree with @rdoeffinger, as I'm not really convinced but I do not mind either.

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

@larroy
larroy commented Feb 16, 2017

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

@lgblgblgb
lgblgblgb commented Feb 21, 2017 edited

I agree, that my past (source code) contributions to MPlayer (and such any later fork, derivative, etc which still contains my code too, of course), to be re-licensed according to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 or later.

I'm not sure if it's used anywhere now, or interesting in any way (currently it must be extremely outdated at the best, and not suitable too much for the mpv project, I think ...), but I wrote some amount of documentations as well at the beginning of MPlayer, I have no objection to place it under any documentation license (even including the case that lack of any) what you want. But I am quite sure, it's not even a question or has no value at all now any more.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment