Mpv: LGPL relicensing

[ghost]

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 ([email protected]) 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: https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/2033#issuecomment-249429195 and https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/2033#issuecomment-249426616

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:

• VLC thinks 99.99% of the code must be covered and 99% of all developers (https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-commits/2011-November/010353.html)
• Dolphin and Mozilla think only 95% of all contributors must have agreed (https://dolphin-emu.org/blog/2015/05/25/relicensing-dolphin/ http://blogs.fsfe.org/ciaran/?p=58)

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: https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/2033#issuecomment-249429195 https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/2033#issuecomment-249426616

MPlayer developers status: https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/2033#issuecomment-249416217

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

[ghost]

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.

[ghost]

@haasn @henry0312 @divVerent @rr- @Kovensky @Yukikaze1 @mati75 @torque @jubalh @eworm-de @rossy @akemi-san @xylosper @Necior @wd0 @sam142 @CrisBRM @kevmitch @qmega @czarkoff @Shudouken @Cloudef @onceking @gunmantheh @masand @zymos @olifre @m45t3r @Skyrainfit @Cpuroast @Argon- @theshortcut @ghost @mathstuf @ryanmjacobs @selsta @Ionic @Nyx0uf @qyot27 @ravenexp @TimothyGu @jaimeMF @ghedo @ahodesuka

[ghost]

@shdown @moskvax @otommod @liuch @brunogm0 @knthzh bjin @ryanmjacobs @andlang @c-14 @jpalus @frau @michaelforney @foo86 @lu-zero @AoD314 @atomnuker @MoSal @markun @amosonn @lucy @ainstushar @MartinN13 @Yomi0 @jleclanche @Nikoli @juanfra684 @AoD314 @andre-d @EvanPurkhiser @candux @ricardomv @deuiore @blinry @percontation @ahodesuka @paulguy @gam-phon @grigorig @elevengu @munousha @jozzse @Bilalh @scarabeusiv @mixi @MagikBSD @vikaapelsinova @hroncok @svenstaro

[ghost]

@viveksjain @agiz @bugmen0t @keeperofdakeys @enkore @CrimsonVoid @wrl @MadFishTheOne @ion1 @d3xter @benf @chengsun @gs93 @jon-y @veprbl @jhawthorn @jmglogow @elevengu @richardpl @spaam @maletor @wsldankers @kax4

[svenstaro]

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]

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]

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-]

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]

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]

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.

[gblach]

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]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[ghost]

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

[Nyx0uf]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Ditto
On Jun 8, 2015 1:41 PM, "James Ross-Gowan" [email protected] 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
https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/2033#issuecomment-110089005.

[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.

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]

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]

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-]

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.

:horse:

[ghost]

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.)

[ghost]

@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]

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

[thiagokokada]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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]

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 [email protected] 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[thiagokokada]

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]

My e-mail archives are forever!

On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 18:31:58 -0700, Thiago Kenji Okada [email protected] 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:
https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/2033#issuecomment-110191731Non-text part: text/html

[thiagokokada]

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

[ChrisK2]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@xylosper:

Thank you for not forgetting me :)

How could I? You made some relatively significant contributions.

[agiz]

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 [email protected] 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:
https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/2033#issuecomment-110333720

[henry0312]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 [email protected] 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
https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/2033#issuecomment-110472860.

[rrooij]

I'm not listed, but since I made small changes I will agree anyway to avoid possible trouble:

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.

[d3xter]

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

[markun]

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

[czarkoff]

I waive my copyright on all my contributions to mpv, mplayer2 or MPlayer.

[kokowadoko]

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.

[mathstuf]

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.

[ainstushar]

xI 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.

[AoD314]

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

[CrimsonVoid]

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]

@czarkoff Love the sentiment, but not all jurisdictions have a concept of waiving copyright; would you mind explicitly stating that you agree to the relicensing? You could mention also allowing a CC0 license if you prefer something as close to public-domain as you can get while being jurisdiction-portable.

[czarkoff]

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

Hereby I explicitly permit to use my contributions to or whatever copyrightable assets I possess in mpv, mplayer2 and MPlayer under CC0 license 1.0 universal. I give an explicit and irrevocable permission to other copyright holders to relicense aforementioned assets in the future without asking my concent or notifying me of such change.

[Yomi0]

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 pretty sure I only corrected a misspelling in a comment somewhere.

[jozzse]

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]

... I'm pretty sure I only corrected a misspelling in a comment somewhere.

True, but it's simpler to just get permission from everyone involved, instead of deciding whether to get permission on a case-by-case basis.

[masand]

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

[giselher]

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

[hsimons]

108/120 = 90%

• [x] AoD314
• [x] Argon-
• [x] Bilalh
• [x] ChrisK2
• [x] Cloudef
• [x] CrimsonVoid
• [x] CrisBRM
• [x] EvanPurkhiser
• [x] Ionic
• [x] MadFishTheOne
• [x] MagikBSD
• [x] MartinN13
• [x] MoSal
• [x] Necior
• [x] Nyx0uf
• [x] Shudouken
• [x] Skyrainfit
• [x] TimothyGu
• [x] Yomi0
• [x] agiz
• [x] ahodesuka
• [x] ainstushar
• [x] akemi-san
• [x] amosonn
• [x] andlang
• [x] andre-d
• [x] atomnuker
• [x] avih
• [x] benf
• [x] bjin
• [x] blinry
• [x] brunogm0
• [x] bugmen0t
• [x] c-14
• [x] chengsun
• [x] czarkoff
• [x] d3xter
• [x] deuiore
• [x] divVerent
• [x] enkore
• [x] eworm-de
• [x] foo86
• [x] frau
• [x] gam-phon
• [x] ghedo
• [x] giselher
• [x] grigorig
• [x] gs93
• [x] gunmantheh
• [x] haasn
• [x] henry0312
• [x] hroncok
• [x] ion1
• [x] jaimeMF
• [x] jhawthorn
• [x] jleclanche
• [x] jon-y
• [x] jozzse
• [x] jpalus
• [x] juanfra684
• [x] jubalh
• [x] keeperofdakeys
• [x] kevmitch
• [x] knthzh
• [x] lachs0r
• [x] liuch
• [x] lu-zero
• [x] m45t3r
• [x] maletor
• [x] markun
• [x] masand
• [x] mathstuf
• [x] mati75
• [x] michaelforney
• [x] mixi
• [x] moskvax
• [x] olifre
• [x] onceking
• [x] otommod
• [x] paulguy
• [x] percontation
• [x] pigoz
• [x] qmega
• [x] qyot27
• [x] ravenexp
• [x] rcombs
• [x] ricardomv
• [x] richardpl
• [x] rossy
• [x] rr-
• [x] rrooij
• [x] ryanmjacobs
• [x] sam142
• [x] scarabeusiv
• [x] selsta
• [x] shdown
• [x] spaam
• [x] svenstaro
• [x] torque
• [x] veprbl
• [x] viveksjain
• [x] wm4
• [x] wrl
• [x] wsldankers
• [x] xylosper
• [ ] Cpuroast
• [x] Kovensky
• [ ] Nikoli
• [ ] Yukikaze1
• [x] lucy
• [x] theshortcut
• [ ] vikaapelsinova
• [ ] candux
• [ ] elevengu
• [x] jmglogow
• [ ] kax4
• [ ] munousha
• [ ] wd0
• [ ] zymos
• [ ] ghost

[ghost]

Thanks for the summary. (The MPlayer part is going to be much harder...)

[ghost]

As someone told me, "ghost" is not a real user, but is used by github to replace accounts that have been deleted. bugmen0t is apparently a login on bugmenot.com.

[hsimons]

I suggest you add to the project README that all new code commuted from now is under the LGPLv2.1, so that you don't have to get new developers' consent later on.
Also, the code contributed by the deleted account (now called ghost) will have to be rewritten, because his account is now deleted and even if the author wanted to agree with this re-licensing, there is no way for him to prove that he was the owner of the deleted account.
Same for the bugmen0t guy.

[ghost]

Good idea. I've added some wording.

Also, the code contributed by the deleted account (now called ghost) will have to be rewritten, because his account is now deleted and even if the author wanted to agree with this re-licensing, there is no way for him to prove that he was the owner of the deleted account.
Same for the bugmen0t guy.

Yep, this code will either have to be removed, or remain GPL forever. This will probably happen a lot with MPlayer code.

Most of bugmen0t's changes affect ao_oss or the build system, so we don't have to care much. (If it gets serious, we could add a --enable-lgpl configure option, which would not compile ao_oss.c.)

[deu]

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

[richardpl]

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.

[brunogm0]

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

[jhawthorn]

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

[jubalh]

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.

[onceking]

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.

[theshortcut]

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.

[jmglogow]

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]

@bugmen0t: so are you a real person, or was your login available on bugmenot.com?

[mathstuf]

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

[ghost]

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]

Should I remove or keep bugmen0t on the list?

[Jessidhia]

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.

[ghost]

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]

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]

@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]

@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]

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.

[ghost]

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]

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" [email protected] 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
https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/2033#issuecomment-165152088.

[mathstuf]

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]

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.

[ghost]

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

[ghost]

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: 8a9b64329c0e387dc59a1fca477a43c50f59ff34

[zekica]

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

[zekica]

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

[presto8]

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]

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

[phiresky]

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%)

Looks like @wm4 basically rewrote everything ;).

Looking at the largest commits, reverts are not tracked (especially 23a7257cca5982fa44300825ea489ba95a7e4c17), 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

[ghost]

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

[phiresky]

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]

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]

Feel free to relicense it under LGPL.

[rossy]

@xnoreq Thanks

[tmm1]

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

[ghost]

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

[ghost]

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

[ghost]

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

[BtbN]

I'm perfectly OK with that!

[Floens]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 [email protected]
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
https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/2033#issuecomment-249415729,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA2gG0prJ_szE1_yw0TM7-2iw4IGCRJ-ks5qtlZcgaJpZM4E78P8
.

[ghost]

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.

Edit: moved to https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/List-of-MPlayer-LGPL-relicensing-agreements

[jwilk]

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]

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]

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.

[cjmayo]

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.

[leahneukirchen]

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]

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, [email protected] 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
https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/2033#issuecomment-249415243,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAhf6zomqf28tAkkzGqXUq3BoqTyCE8Lks5qtlNvgaJpZM4E78P8
.

[dubhater]

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]

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]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[jdek]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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).

[ghost]

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

[rikkus]

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]

cc @ulion @niltsh

[Themaister]

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.

[ghost]

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]

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.

[ghost]

@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]

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

[rossy]

Ping @rocky, since they are one of the authors of this patch: 0538ed8780e7

[rocky]

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]

@rocky Understood. Thanks!

[ghost]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[shanyaodan]

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]

@shanyaodan that's great, but I can't see whether you have contributed anything to these projects. Maybe under another name?

[tmm1]

cc @markun @ulion @verm @czarkoff @bugfood @lucabe72 @naoya-oyama @ranma @paultt

[verm]

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.

[bugfood]

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.

[paultt]

On 07/03/2017 22:16, Aman Gupta wrote:
>

cc @markun https://github.com/markun @ulion
https://github.com/ulion @verm https://github.com/verm @czarkoff
https://github.com/czarkoff @bugfood https://github.com/bugfood
@lucabe72 https://github.com/lucabe72 @naoya-oyama
https://github.com/naoya-oyama @ranma https://github.com/ranma
@paultt https://github.com/paultt

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/2033#issuecomment-284847745,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADptMKg2L87_Y3zNCmsoCBmA4wFN0KGks5rjck5gaJpZM4E78P8.

i agree to relicense all my contributions as LGPL, for MPV

:)

--
"Capitano Long Horn! Nessun Sistema Operativo in Vista!!"

[felixbuenemann]

I agree that my past contributions to mplayer2 or MPlayer are relicensed to the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 or later. (cvn/svn username atmos4)

[tmm1]

cc @kmkaplan @zuxy @oattila @danchr @davel @inverseparadox @shuehner @fashberg @colinleroy @multimediamike @diffusor @faust3 @voroshil @ObiWahn @kmarty @gergomez @mgraffam @hartman @ArturZaprzala @aleksanderd @akshaal @dholm @vsyrjala @wojdyr @kees @covek @rmriches @tuxie @McCodie @wojtekka @twilly @aboulan @Mathieu-Castets @davidecapod @jkrzyszt @GordonSchmidt @steaphan-fb-com @hyc @aholtzma

[danchr]

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.

Furthermore, I agree that any contributions I have made, in a personal capacity, to any other open source project, and which is currently included in mpv, be relicensed under the same terms.

For the record, I did indeed write the original Darwin timing routines and tried to license them rather liberally — but I must admit I'm slightly surprised to see them still in use.

[kmkaplan]

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

[colinleroy]

Hi,

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

Although I'm not sure there still is any code from me in there :)

[oattila]

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]

@colinleroy

Although I'm not sure there still is any code from me in there :)

That's always such an embarrassing question for us. We go all our way out to contact tons of contributors, even though the current source tree often does not contain a single line of code they would recognize again. But their contribution might still count, because newer code might be based on old code they modified. Even if the modifications were minor and didn't survive. So we ask as many contributors as possible just to be safe.

Many contributors we contact probably don't realize this and ignore our request, because they think it doesn't matter. So thank you for responding. And of course thanks for giving permission to the LGPL relicensing. (I don't normally write "thanks" responses because I think that would be annoying in an issue with up to 170 people CC'ed.)

In general it's probably good to get as many positive responses as possible, just to demonstrate that there's some kind of consent among the total set of contributors that a LGPL relicensing is ok.

[zuxy]

2017-03-09 13:09 GMT-08:00 Aman Gupta [e-mail]:

cc @kmkaplan https://github.com/kmkaplan @zuxy https://github.com/zuxy

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

--
Zuxy
Beauty is truth,
While truth is beauty.
PGP KeyID: E8555ED6

[mgraffam]

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

[kmarty]

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

[diffusor]

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

[dholm]

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.

[siriux]

@wm4 Do you know the status of the relicense process?

I would like to use mpv on an opensource app but I don't want to force the GPL license. Do you think the relicense could happen in the mid term, or is there still a long way to go?

Thanks a lot for your effort!

[ghost]

@siriux impossible to tell. I think we have a large coverage of the code under LGPL relicensing permission agreements, but there are still tons of contributors who didn't reply or who weren't contacted. Also one developer (anders) disagreed, which would require at least rewriting the audio filter chain.

[ghost]

cc @swieton for a MPlayer slave commands extension in 2003: 26afe0c58c12731dfc9c655a54401406fb71631a

[ObiWahn]

Do whatever you wish with my code;) I agree that my past contributions to mpv, mplayer2, or MPlayer are relicensed as you please.

[ikonst]

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.

[wojdyr]

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

[swieton]

I agree to the licensing change.

[Tuxie]

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.

[McCodie]

I agree that my tiny bugfix 10 years ago is relicensed to LGPL or whatever you want.

[wojtekka]

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

[ranma]

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]

@McCodie sorry who are you? We've probably contacted you by email, but I can't link your github handle to a MPlayer contribution. (Edit: nevermind, you're mrechberger. Thanks again and sorry for the noise.)

Also, thanks everyone. Relieved to see ranma's reply in particular.

[ghost]

cc @rkuhn for an ALSA improvement in 2004: c27b831927bfccb608 (I hope I'm getting the right person)
cc @ossilator for moving some code in 2004: 333832e130e0
cc @pengvado mostly for a demux_mkv improvement in 2004: e8a1b3713022 and 2005 316bb1d44c247d (not asking for permission to relicense mencoder things)
cc @rdolbeau for a small patch in 2004: 4e8aa8f506f2a377c82

[inverseparadox]

On the one hand, the only contributions I remember having made to any of these projects (mostly documentation phrasing tweaks, and I think at least one build fix) are minor enough that I'm not at all sure they're copyrightable.

On the other, I don't think I agree that the "LGPL is almost like GPL"; the text of LGPL 2.1 itself states that it "is quite different from the ordinary General Public License", and reviewing a wdiff of the two shows enough apparent non-similarities that I'm not prepared to just dismiss them.

Also, I do see a meaningful difference between a closed-source application accessing the code via slave mode and such an application doing so by loading a library; in the former case you can drop in your own modified version of the slave-mode application, as long as you maintain the same external interfaces (in the form of slave mode), but in the latter you also need to retain _internal_ interfaces in a way which limits the extent of the changes you can make.

So, short version: I'm not really comfortable with relicensing my contributions from GPL to LGPL, at least not with the rationale provided, but my contributions may well not be significant enough to be an obstacle to overall relicensing.

[rkuhn]

Yes, that’s correct, you found my university address ;-)

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]

@inverseparadox you've made a bunch of printf to mp_msg changes in the early days, so we'd probably have a larger problem if you don't agree. (But I'm not sure, it's hard to tell.)

Also, I do see a meaningful difference between a closed-source application accessing the code via slave mode and such an application doing so by loading a library; in the former case you can drop in your own modified version of the slave-mode application, as long as you maintain the same external interfaces (in the form of slave mode), but in the latter you also need to retain internal interfaces in a way which limits the extent of the changes you can make.

Well, if there's a closed source application, it would have to _dynamically_ link with a LGPL libmpv, so you could still replace libmpv. Static linking is not permitted, unless the thing it's linked with is also GPL/LGPL.

libmpv's API is actually pretty similar to slave mode (it has API functions like mpv_command(), which send a command string to the player), so I'd claim that changes to it wouldn't be too unsimilar to changes to MPlayer's slave mode. But even if the ones creating the closed source application extended the libmpv API significantly, they'd be legally obliged to open source their changes to libmpv. That's how the LGPL works.

The main issue with libmpv vs. slave mode is that libmpv provides calls to render video directly to an OpenGL context provided by the API user. Out of process is not possible, unless you'd use highly platform-specific and complicated APIs to share GPU surfaces between processes. We want to avoid the latter.

Whether you agree or not is of course your choice, and it's up to us dealing with a "no" without violating your copyright. Would some sort of compromise work? For example we don't want to relicense the documentation, so permission to relicense your changes to C code only would be ok with us.

[inverseparadox]

I consider those printf -> mp_msg changes to be largely trivial, and probably even less copyrightable than the documentation phrasing tweaks; the only remotely original thing in them is the choice of which MSGT to use, IIRC, and ISTR that I mostly relied on external guidance (e.g. Diego Biurrun) as to which to use in each case.

If those particular changes are not considered a problem (I'd be willing to relicense those if it's a concern, since I don't consider them copyrightable anyway), are there still obstacles elsewhere in my contributions?

[CounterPillow]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or a mpv contributor.

@inverseparadox

are minor enough that I'm not at all sure they're copyrightable.
[...]
I consider those printf -> mp_msg changes to be largely trivial, and probably even less copyrightable than the documentation phrasing tweaks

The only entity capable to decide on this is a court, and unless you ever take someone violating your copyright on this code to court, the question as to whether you actually own or do not own the copyright on the code is up in limbo, since there is no legal ruling on the matter for this particular case. Uncertainty about legal situations is a big no-go for businesses when it comes to choosing what technology to invest in. The scary thing about being taken to court is not the prospect of losing, but the prospect of having to pay for lawyers to make your case in the first place. As an example from another branch of intellectual property law, most software patent claims stand unchallenged because neither side is willing to take the gamble, and in practice this means nobody is going to touch the intellectual property no matter how laughable it is.

[inverseparadox]

That's part of why I said I'd be willing to relicense those specific changes; since I don't consider them copyrightable, the net effect of relicensing them would be no worse than what I (implicitly) think should be the case anyway.

(Intellectual-property law, and reform, is one of my areas of interest and potentially activism; there are a lot of things I think should be changed, but I'm at least reasonably aware of how things currently are.)

[ossilator]

you can see my actual contribution in http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-dev-eng/2004-January/023606.html - none of it is relevant to libmpv, and it's pretty much below the triviality threshold anyway.

[ghost]

@inverseparadox sounds fine to me. What about the strings added to help_mp-en.h? (Most code printing a message reference a #define in this file. It's thus part of the C code, and the copyright of these messages belongs to you. In mplayer2 times, this header file was removed, and all these messages were made part of the "proper" C code, for the sake of using gettext style translation.) Also you applied 2 patches to C code sent by others, I assume you didn't modify them (thus no copyright).

[inverseparadox]

Although I don't remember what strings those were in particular, I believe I consider those to be on a similar level to the documentation tweaks; they may well be copyrightable, but I wouldn't object if they weren't, and on that basis I don't think I'd have a problem with relicensing them.

You're correct that I didn't modify patches submitted by others, to the best of my awareness; I don't even remember applying them.

If that's the sum of my contributions, it sounds like there's nothing I'd consider problematic in any case - in which case you have my consent to relicense, on the grounds that I don't think this should be something that even needs licensing. (I might change my mind about that at a later date, but that's exactly why you want the explicit relicensing.)

[ghost]

@inverseparadox: If you put it like this, it definitely works for us. I've put you on the list with people that agree, and noted that there are restrictions.

[ghost]

@niklata are you the same person who created the patch applied with 42b784ac1a0c71?

[niklata]

@wm4 Yes, I am. I have no issues with my contributions to mpv/mplayer being re-licensed to LGPL. I haven't read everything prior on this issue, 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.

[rdolbeau]

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]

cc @jeremyhu for potentially being the author of 9b0d8c680f6

[McCodie]

I think something went wrong with your parsers, I was tagged with McCodie -
but I have nothing to do with him/her.

My contributions from 10 years ago can be relicensed with whatever you want.

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 3:18 PM, V. Lang [e-mail] wrote:

@McCodie https://github.com/McCodie sorry who are you? We've probably
contacted you by email, but I can't link your github handle to a MPlayer
contribution.

Also, thanks everyone. Relieved to see ranma's reply in particular.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/2033#issuecomment-285947591,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASWhN0LwtRzgGEsF_BAozqmTf9bPOVXQks5rk_6ngaJpZM4E78P8
.

[CounterPillow]

@McCodie I'm not sure who's replying to this github issue as McCodie, but you're showing up here as McCodie, so if you're not McCodie you might want to look into this and also actually tell people who you are.

[multimediamike]

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

[voroshil]

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

[hartman]

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

This specifically includes the SPDIF core audio code as partially copied from VLC media player to Mplayer by fellow developers.

[rmriches]

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

This specifically includes the tiny piece of ancient code (which has most likely been entirely replaced by more efficient and readable code) that (in audio-only mode) printed time in HH:MM:SS.ff... in addition to whole seconds.

[koct9i]

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

[jjermann]

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.

[fashberg]

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
(my geeky "-vo aa" has been removed in mplayer2, but maybe some parts left, i wrote some parameter-handling stuff more than 15 years ago :) , so here we go)

[ghost]

(my geeky "-vo aa" has been removed in mplayer2, but maybe some parts left, i wrote some parameter-handling stuff more than 15 years ago :) , so here we go)

Yeah, unfortunately that's how it often goes. But with copyright you can't be careful enough. Thank you for responding and giving permission.

[ghost]

cc @kanavin for author of 3ee94605052ebae
cc @HermiG for potential author of d4b5ee2cd55929f

[kanavin]

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

[georgiptr]

Hello,

I'm Georgi Petrov, the contributor of the Direct3D video renderer. My previous (now defunct) e-mail was [email protected]. I was contacted to agree that my code is re-licensed. You have my full permission. Good luck!

[chocolateboy]

Sure.

[ghost]

@hsimons @phiresky any chance you could update your stats?

[ghost]

Does anyone speak Russian, and can find out what happened to Nick Kurshev? (Also Nickols Kurshev.) He dropped off the internet in 2013. Any attempts to reach him failed.

[hyc]

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.

[SeanMcG]

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.

[faust3]

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]

@faust3 thanks! Are you really the MPlayer faust3 (S. Sommer)?

[ghost]

I moved https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/2033#issuecomment-249416217 to the wiki: https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/List-of-MPlayer-LGPL-relicensing-agreements

Since github hides posts in the middle of this issue by default to save bandwidth, the link to the post didn't always work. Also, the wiki tracks edits with a history (github wikis are backed by a git repo), so it's better in general.

[lez]

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]

@lez thanks for reconsidering.

[davidecapod]

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

[DanOscarsson]

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

[phiresky]

@wm4 I've updated the statistics table, see https://gist.github.com/phiresky/d8127643f352899fa595ae8f81e16c21

(184017/191405 lines have agreed. (96%))

I didn't pay very much attention to matching though (matched comments from here containing /I agree/ to github names and mail addresses with nickname@ from your svn list. So there might be both false negatives and false positives.

[ghost]

Thanks. About what I expected. I need to hunt down those remaining mpv contributors, although some newer ones explicitly contributed acknowledging the LGPL agreement.

[faust3]

@wm4: Yes.

[shuehner]

On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 01:43:24PM -0800, Aman Gupta wrote:

cc @kmkaplan @zuxy @oattila @danchr @davel @inverseparadox @shuehner

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

Stefan Huehner

[tmm1]

cc @ddawson (demux_mkv and ordered chapters fixes in mplayer2)
cc @akshaal (initial sub_delay support)
cc @Mathieu-Castets (patch to demux_mkv in 2003)
cc @aleksanderd (-sstep option)
cc @jkrzyszt (effectively adds a few IMGFMTs, other patches removed)
cc @kees (dvdnav support, which won't be relicensed, but also potentially touches common code like input commands, which we want as LGPL)
cc @bryanpkc (fakemono patch)
cc @ulion (many changes all over the place, added significant features)
cc @walken-google (part of libmpeg2 video output changes might have been used as skeleton for vo.h)
cc @kmarty (an OSD patch in 2001, introduces the osd-level concept and a key shortcut to change it)
cc @lumag (minor fixes in commit 175884718b19cd9, otherwise removed only removed/doc changes)
cc @hephooey (possibly early subtitle switching code)
cc @twilly (demux_mkv changes)
cc @covek (small fixes: -frames 0, reset frame drop stats on new files)
cc @aholtzma (libmpeg2 code was used by arpi as skeleton for vo.h and related files)
cc @lucabe72 (introduced fmt-conversion.h for pixfmts, changed some other MPlayer code to use it - libswscale contribs not needed)
cc @naoya-oyama (ad_spdif.c)
cc @pascalhaakmat (-loop option, code was refactored 10 times but is still there)

[kmarty]

2tmm1: I already agreed: https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/2033#issuecomment-285801032

[tmm1]

@kmarty Thanks, will make sure to reflect that in https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/List-of-missing-MPlayer-LGPL-relicensing-agreements

[kees]

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.

[GordonSchmidt]

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.

[ddawson]

@tmm1 Thanks for the CC. This is the first I've seen this. My contributions were to MPlayer2 back in early December 2009. I used my Icehouse email at the time, but it is defunct since I changed ISPs.

And yes, 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]

@phiresky you can merge @axic and (svn: alex, al3x, [email protected]). It is all me 😉

[lumag]

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]

cc @francescolavra (DVB teletext - most likely all removed or in GPL-only code, but still touches a lot of other code)
cc @jsvennevid (2 early panscan/aspect patches)
cc @exg (a small demux_mkv fix, fixes to OSX code)
cc @jeremyhu (for cache fill options/impl in 9b0d8c680f634)
cc @now (patch to get_path.c b4f2bc353b69)
cc @Skywalker13 (mostly slave mode extensions/fixes)
cc @zaburt (small change to video output aspect code)
cc @timothytylee (some small fixes 2004-2006)
cc @davel (cookies.c code and options)
cc @LionsAd (playtree extensions, most code probably removed, but mp_basename still exists in some form)
cc @sherpya (bzero -> memset patch)
cc @timwoj (-geometry for vo_corevideo, not sure if still present)
cc @emild (pretty trivial demux_lavf change in afe879eb993944c5)
cc @Gabrov (minor code changes in b39cfa205fdb8 and d2705f7abe65, mostly did hungarian docs otherwise)
cc @treitmayr
cc @eric321 (small patch for changing reading from stdin in 2002: 654a6f977134537)
cc @yumkam (path handling changes e8757fb88311, ass file loading fc50523f80a probably removed)
cc @hzoli (changes to common audio decode code in 067c0482d99d, vd_ffmpeg.c change in b49ee1f782340, other changes not needed)
cc @pengvado (apart from mencoder, some small changes)
cc @ArturZaprzala (svn name zybi - very early changes, probably created OSD symbol font)
cc @taxy (vf_stereo3d fixes)

[timwoj]

I talked to @wm4 this morning. 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.

[jkrzyszt]

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.

[treitmayr]

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.

[zaburt]

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

[hephooey]

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

[exg]

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

[sherpya]

bzero to memset patch is a trivial fix, you can consider it public domain

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Emanuele Giaquinta <
[email protected]> wrote:

I agree that my past contributions to 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
https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/2033#issuecomment-288856968,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAHVCiLxg34VAAKGDjXb54ejcWFZw_o6ks5rotwtgaJpZM4E78P8
.

[jsvennevid]

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

[emild]

My fix "(pretty trivial demux_lavf change)" is -- as the subject implies -- trivial, please consider it public domain.

[Skywalker13]

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

Possible emails in the commits mathieu.[email protected], [email protected]

[francescolavra]

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

[ghost]

Just 3 small things:

• Thanks to everyone who has replied! There are still about 60 names missing. Anyone who didn't reply yet, but is possibly reading this, your reply would make us very happy (even if you disagree to the license change).
• Everyone who replied with a comment that we should assume their patch is in the public domain - we will just assume general agreement with relicensing (which legally is less questionable for us, since public domain does not exist everywhere).
• It may or may not happen that some code will fall under LGPL3, which could mean that the final license will be LGPL3. This would affect people/projects who really wanted to use libmpv under LGPL2, but cannot accept LGPL3. Does anyone have a problem with this?

[LionsAd]

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

[HermiG]

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

On Wednesday, March 15, 2017, V. Lang [e-mail] wrote:

cc @kanavin https://github.com/kanavin for author of 3ee9460
https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/commit/3ee94605052ebae0b4de4ed448fb0aa7ac365637
cc @HermiG https://github.com/HermiG for potential author of d4b5ee2
https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/commit/d4b5ee2cd55929f190fe626c6d74697709ae2858

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/2033#issuecomment-286623389,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABAMuFysqQwf-xKuZpWZigH3hQrUO9Slks5rmIjfgaJpZM4E78P8
.

[richfelker]

I've finally reviewed a list prepared by wm4 of commits, quoted here:

Wanted for mpv relicensing:

10bdbae17123f4747d925f3823bb11cc677c4999 r7449 version.sh
6246706f8d73931dec8deb0593424c71de4f0be6 r8870 vf_crop/vf_expand mp_msg conversion
6c8af6c720ef362e834e606a1acaba02f1ff794e r8873 -subalign option
f6ffd63f4b8243f0c15908858381570f72f8d10f r8886 minor vd_ffmpeg fix
3b285a0e3b2a7e17b0c367b8e25f37bca5020fe6 r9078 general subtitle improvements
39b9c45e34fdc880d38325a3c04bcbf6a3b3d8f5 r9941 minor mplayer.c fix
70d324884097f31176940571a17f90f44ae773d8 r10003 vf_scale option handling
f443581bb0c69fe3f9affd194baf235e2e85d0e0 r10008 vf_crop slices support
13160582ec6db1c9887c614ecf99bcc707414039 r10009 fix r10008
9d0b5a9eaf8fe03a2064ccf54a56d743262f058a r10028 100l for r10009
8b0fe128407b9d0bfcb32d58c57a3f78d5a180cb r10141 slices fix
fb5d93525132a963892787c7c95c7f20ee2e50e6 r10142 code consistency fixes in filters
732126488d5c502c3dade18b9e212f2ef9272c85 r10224 apply someone else's patch
3e4aa8b0bda665bb939612beb897c4925ef97dd0 r10246 another patch application
48ecb3e717979195d45c691366da422fb7b06f90 r10664 field flag cleanup/enhancement
a38d15e8afb8cfbd74d35c0691d8f79c408a1967 r11857 minor demux_mkv change
7c726367e6fd6dbdbff0e56be00047c39a4b24bd r12282 some demux_rawaudio enhancement
4ebc221760434ff67ae27def5803bab47552f221 r12377 ebml.c (demux_mkv) fix
6a3e54b5f1dbfc815f7adc723fa82be9c763855f r12385 dec_audio.c fix
1361d538173330b3a9e211dbf886edd4b697d873 r14893 mp_image fix
4eb1b755bb6df1bd35ae07c9c67eb3644ad63bd8 r14844 touches demux_mkv
099b134f6797351051d0c3244d6de090cf087f11 r14945 for mencoder, but touches shared code
fa5ace34d878b6537420049ce37f9df6cb45f523 r16789 mplayer.c terminal output
37584f552e5935439f57ef330c8472d2c489c4af r16838 vf_expand fix
211132c2e684b2da7b47ea566a217b37a001f592 r16840 changes sub_alignment default
97f2d88db08c2f079f522d315ff4f78f88d9f74a r16855 m_option.c fixes
a703fdaa614d54076121fa176b54eeee3be7e433 r18001 more mp_msg gettext removal
fe2cc4dc15f3df6c876869855b452e2c3368e1e4 r18468 touches timer-lx.c
79bacf325c3bec6be602a68eb19b26f62c39221c r18989 c++ decls in demux_mkv
22bbf3a01bc35b07a49effb5298955767dd1549a r18900 c++ decls in demux_lavf
6e2e1a80e7713a9e1da2bf50ee5661c6d69d48a3 r19490 add include statement to ass_mp
73b5bbac294532860011ab87196073d61e96c1b5 r23010 something about dvd option decls
1400ea6fbfec242e818751bad300c7fe6ee96b98 r23011 fix uau breakage
452c2c565205cb5a88cdf1570b689d7695a12b6d r24994 const fixes
549d3be0c7fcd1290a210434d89c46f0e47c5623 r24996 add consts to vf.c
f713cb0faf11287bd143bb2cf2a187ead31ca869 r24997 add consts to filters
aef0374c1cef269d65b8783dae8d33ee45a1f976 r25280 dec_audio.c compilation fix
4bceedee9305e1ebf53c598eb863aac4153e67d5 r25281 dec_audio.c compilation fix
ae9db277c7dae6350cab22d9c57d78cc4684aa9c r25282 dec_audio.c compilation fix

Will probably remain GPL in mpv due to other problems, but asking in case these
problems get solved:

cad4462de505a65141225b10660ab884d4ed0fd4 r7119 ao_oss
6f6342a4b009ed605663435172da5b7a3ef897e3 r7669 ao_oss
e935c134ffe8e4801d8bedc840973569296b03e5 r7975 af_volume bug fix
0ca2d2a80b39bb0190251ffcb9b570d90ac03d90 r8304 ao_oss
837893b654265fed2db2e56a6325eccce903f494 r8305 ao_oss
fd5f02e1ff7792ffd50e6abec69cec38afb413b1 r8744 xv
c4282b3cfed6b73a32ce3c39e130f307c7331fd3 r12384 ao_oss
1b6f3ce5166771dc8d1ac90beaaa9b843c723558 r12387 af.c fix
81a689734307105e97623e6fa15c29cc0107a0f2 r14069 af_volume fix
97bd024609ad41b60f3732aa2bdcf46ef06e1478 r18486 x11

My understanding is that these cover all of my non-video-filter contributions. I hereby agree to license the above listed contributions under LGPL v2.1 or later. My other code (video filters) remains GPL.

[jeremyhu]

cc @jeremyhu for potentially being the author of 9b0d8c6

That was in 2004, prior to my current employment, so I hold full copyright of all changes that I made back then.

I hereby license all contributions that I have made to mpv, mplayer2, and/or MPlayer (including, but not necessarily limited to 9b0d8c6, from the beginning of time up until this date) into the Public Domain such that the current and future maintainers of this project may relicense this work as it sees fit, including but not necessarily limited to LGPL-2.1 or later.

[timothytylee]

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

[ulion]

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

[mcastets]

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

[akshaal]

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

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Mathieu Castets [e-mail]
wrote:

I agree that my past contributions to 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
https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/2033#issuecomment-290748310,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABHGOvy4zfIJJnp7iVtCCkI17Dm79mv1ks5rrR7DgaJpZM4E78P8
.

[davel]

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

(I have made no contribution to mpv or mplayer2.)

[Gabrov]

I agree that my past contributions to MPlayer are relicensed to
the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 or later (have no contribution to mpv or mplayer2).

[ArturZaprzala]

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.

[aholtzma]

Based on any residual copyright I have on vo.h, vo.c, and vo_x11.c, I agree that it can be made available under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2 or later.

[ghost]

@aholtzma great to hear from you! We've been trying everything to reach you, so that's a relief.

Does this include vo_null.c and your libao changes too? (We might have failed to explicitly request permission for libao.) libao is basically the same case: what we need is the skeleton, that was used as base for all newer code.

[insanetesterftw]

A cornucopia of bad argumentation including using the overused logical fallacy "freer than free"!

LGPL is almost like GPL, except it gives more freedom to the library user.

New generations determined in destroying what previous generations have built just so they can conform.

[insanetesterftw]

@wm4

It may or may not happen that some code will fall under LGPL3, which could mean that the final license will be LGPL3. This would affect people/projects who really wanted to use libmpv under LGPL2, but cannot accept LGPL3. Does anyone have a problem with this?

The license chosen is LGPLv2+. This means that anyone using this software can choose between LGPLv2, LGPLv3, LGPLv4 and so forth.

[rossy]

@insanetesterftw

A cornucopia of bad argumentation including using the overused logical fallacy "freer than free"!

'Freedom' is a bit of a loaded term in the FOSS community, so it's hard to understand what you mean. Please consider the whole list of reasons.

Unlike MPlayer, mpv is now a multimedia playback library as well as a standalone video player. Multimedia playback is a pretty common task, so libmpv has a lot of competitors in this space, including proprietary libraries (DirectShow, Media Foundation, QuickTime.) Of course, most users of these libraries should be using libmpv instead, and the LGPL removes some barriers to doing so.

The FSF has this to say about the LGPL, which I think applies to libmpv:

However, if you require developers who use your library to release their whole programs under copyleft, they'll simply use one of the alternatives available, and that won't advance our cause either. The Lesser GPL was designed to fill the middle ground between these cases, allowing proprietary software developers to use the covered library, but providing a weak copyleft that gives users freedom regarding the library code itself.

One practical barrier to adoption of a GPL libmpv is the incompatibility with OpenSSL, and this affects non-GPL FOSS programs as well, especially on GNU/Linux, since both macOS and Windows have operating system APIs for SSL. It's a pain when two well-meaning FOSS projects can't share code because they happen to have chosen incompatible licences, especially if this only causes trouble for GNU/Linux users.

New generations determined in destroying what previous generations have built just so they can conform.

Assuming this is referring to MPlayer, I wouldn't worry. mpv has removed and rewritten a lot of MPlayer code, so even if mpv's relicencing is successful, it won't affect the licensing status of MPlayer.

The license chosen is LGPLv2+. This means that anyone using this software can choose between LGPLv2, LGPLv3, LGPLv4 and so forth.

I think you're misunderstanding what was meant by "some code will fall under LGPL3" here. This is referring to a specific MPlayer developer who agreed to relicence his code under LGPLv3 instead of LGPLv2.1+. If mpv keeps his code, the project as a whole would not be usable under the terms of LGPLv2.1 (only LGPLv3.)

[ghost]

@axboe: asking for permission to relicense d65c8518dee9 to "LGPL v2.1 or later"

[axboe]

You have my permission to do so.

[aholtzma]

@wm4 yes, vo_null.c and anything based on libao in audio/out/ is covered as well.

[ghost]

@jostillmanns: asking for permission for 1ee8ce75f1f079

[candux]

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]

@sjourdois asking for permission to relicense 29ab7de580596c48d71a990c84cab1917de5e272 to "LGPL v2.1 or later"

[sjourdois]

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.

Le 18 mai 2017 à 14:50, V. Lang [e-mail] a écrit :

@sjourdois https://github.com/sjourdois asking for permission to relicense 29ab7de https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/commit/29ab7de580596c48d71a990c84cab1917de5e272 to "LGPL v2.1 or later"

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/2033#issuecomment-302394025, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGBb2NTqG0EXwPoIDveZW-kUOXwywyksks5r7D6MgaJpZM4E78P8.

[tmm1]

@isten @pnis Have either of you contributed to mplayer in the past?

[ghost]

@msvec asking for permission to relicense MPlayer commit 574eb892ea0e70d88789a6cb84e1fcc0eab1ad5e from GPL to LGPL.

[msvec]

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]

@xadlik asking for permission to relicense MPlayer commit 8337d9c26f from GPL to LGPL (if you're the same person).

[ghost]

@hrw asking for permission to relicense MPlayer commit 682288117ea from GPL to LGPL (if you're the same person).

[hrw]

Feel free.

This was my first submission to mplayer. And one of my first to Foss projects.

Dnia 20 czerwca 2017 18:29:12 CEST, "V. Lang" [e-mail] napisał(a):

@hrw asking for permission to relicense MPlayer commit 682288117ea from
GPL to LGPL (if you're the same person).

--
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/2033#issuecomment-309814136

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[vstax]

Hello Vincent, you've contacted me @ VM10124.spb.edu, however my reply can't seem to reach you as the IP seems to be BLed by t-online.de, so posting here.

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]

@vstax oh, sorry. If anyone else has problems, I also have [email protected]. (And there I hoped not using my spam sink address would help.)

Also thanks for the permission, and thanks to everyone else who agreed too.

[ghost]

@mzealey asking for permission to relicense MPlayer commits 0842caf6f01b10ee2d78ec3c50312df713675b92 and a2dfc7a766c2f00408671327838602eebcc4cddf from GPL to LGPL (already tried to send email a few times).

[ghost]

@ncopa asking for permission to relicense your mpv contributions to LGPL.

[mzealey]

@wm4 Sorry - old email address. Permission is fine

[ghost]

@mzealey thanks! And you're the same person? Is zealey.org your site? It was quite hard to reach you in summary.

[now]

I’ve earlier confirmed via mail that you may re-license my insignificant patch to LGPL, but let this be a reconfirmation of that.

[ghost]

@now thanks, I got your mail. I don't usually reply to them because I'm thinking I probably annoyed them enough with my relicensing requests. I hope nobody takes that in the wrong way.

[ghost]

All @bugmen0t changes removed from git master (except ao_oss.c and tv_v4l2.c itself, which we can't relicense for other reasons).

[mzealey]

@wm4 yes this is me :-)

[ghost]

For everyone's information, I'm counting all mpv changes authored after Dec 22 2015 as LGPL licensed, in corner cases after Jul 24 2015. This is because essentially the project policy was changed to require contributions in LGPL. Contributors not reading the guidelines might have been unaware of that, but not my problem if someone can't read the fine print. Of course this doesn't apply to MPlayer contributions in any way (none were merged during this time frame anyway).

• The github pull request template was added on Fri Jun 17 2016: d0bd39eb90811b25f063c4043a8cb08086e1de65
• CONTRIBUTING.md was added on Tue Dec 22 2015: 3de6c9aa42feb1695f65a6f7f0880a1877ca6e48
• contribute.md and Copyright was changed on Fri Jul 24 2015: 95b930f8661c5967206739d3d5a6728191393817

[ghost]

@wd0 ping! You didn't agree yet. Can you state whether you agree or disagree to the relicensing?
(Edit: for 38b05daf7d16898f4a63e4ccf48479d8964e6e19)

[ghost]

@bucaneer for ca77bcd5434d6cfb379a46aeee880f8c2b076872

[bucaneer]

Already agreed earlier in this thread: https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/2033#issuecomment-249416367

[ghost]

(Oh, sorry.)

[ghost]

Pinging again the following people for MPlayer code LGPL relicensing permission (can't hurt to try...):
@covek
@pengvado
@taxy

[ricotz]

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.

[ncopa]

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

[rossy]

Ping @RunePetersen. Are you the author of 14ecebe920e6?

[ilnanny]

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]

@timofonic thanks for your help! Well, we've been completely unable to contact him. He seemed to have dropped off the internet too. I don't know what else we could actually try. It seems to be a common name too.

Getting his agreement would be good. I believe technically we're in the clear - there are only a few fragments of copyrightable code written by Nick that are still in the code base. But in some cases this is a rather close call.

@ilnanny thanks! I don't see any git or svn commits mapping to your name, though. Can you clarify?

[ghost]

We tried to contact everyone who probably still knew Nick, and whose email addresses we had. Nothing came out of it. At this point, I've given up hope to contact him (or even knowing what happened to him), unless maybe someone who knows Russian can jump in.

[kkkrackpot]

I have some reason to believe that this person [del]
may be the very Nikolay Kurshev, a 48 y.o. programmer from Kazan city (Russia), who you're looking for.
I could make some more reseach later when time permits (but no promise) -- if you still need it, of course.

[ghost]

@fhlfibh we tried to call this guy via phone earlier, but it wasn't very successful. I think he said he isn't the one, but maybe the phone number was not correct. Also didn't react to facebook messages AFAIK. CC @tmm1

[msva]

@timofonic well, as I said on the IRC, giving Lebedev as example was a bit wrong ☺ Actually, a bit correct "about russian names" would be:

Rissians has no "middle" name as some other nations, but they have patronymic name (name of the father plus suffix meaning belonging).
In some very rare cases (unrelated to that issue at all) it can be "matronymic" (based on the mother name).

There is not much examples in modern time, so Lebedev's is just a local russian meme, and his actual patronymic is "Anreevich" (son of Andrew)

[nokitakaze]

VERY VERY rarely it can be mother first name

No, it can not be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronymic#Russian
Artemiy "Tatiatovich" called by that because he uses too much of obscene language. There is a pun in russian, "obscene language" (mat / мат) is very similar to word "mother" (мать).
"All of people have father name, and only Artemiy Lebedev has mother name, because he uses MAT for too much".

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%90%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 Lebedev Artemiy Andreevich (son of Andrey)

[msva]

@nokitakaze too slow :)

[nokitakaze]

@msva, see figure 1

[pengvado]

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

[nicholson5158]

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]

@nicholson5158 can you tell us your name, or your MPlayer svn user name, or an email address under which you contributed?

[ghost]

Without any of that, we can't associate any code with you. Consider sending private mail to me (e.g. [email protected]).

@wm4 Would be hard to have automated statistics of LGPL vs GPL code? That would motivate others to replace the code

The manual listing in Copyright must be sufficient. The main thing missing is the replacement of the audio filter chain. I plan on redoing video filters, making them more general, and then implementing audio filtering on top of it. Other missing parts are some code fragments in the core (can be made optional, but still hurts), ao_alsa.c, x11_common.c, vaapi and vdpau hw decoding. The rest is already LGPL, or can stay GPL.

[ghost]

PS: audio filtering could also be optional. Coming up with a hack that does so would probably take at most 1 hour, but would also lack some features. Then most of the player could be immediately be put under the LGPL.

[ghost]

I did the above, so here's the relicensing of the core: https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/commit/bfa9b628589068acdbb04d97f86051063e82fd94

[ghost]

Posted to mplayer list (as I promised): http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-dev-eng/2017-September/073650.html

Once some time has passed, I'll remove the -preliminary from the configure switch.

[ghost]

(The author insisting on LGPLv3 changed his opinion. Renamed the build switch to --enable-preliminary-lgpl2.)

[ghost]

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 (<[email protected]>): 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]

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

[ghost]

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

[axic]

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

[ghost]

@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]

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

[ghost]

That one also bounces.

[axic]

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

[axic]

Maybe @znuh is Benedikt Hunz.

[ghost]

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]

Hello,

does anyone know it the one who contributed to libmpcodecs/vf_tinterlace.c - Michael Zucchi [e-mail] back in 2003 gave the permission to change the parts he authored?

I have some troubles to find him.

Thanks,
-Vasile

[ghost]

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]

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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

How many people you still need to find?

[Akemi]

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

[tmm1]

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

[mathstuf]

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

1609 |   | UNKNOWN | [email protected] | Marcin Kurczewski,rr-

and below as agreed:

574 | ✓ | @rr- | [email protected] | rr-

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

[rr-]

@mathstuf Yes, it's me.

[axic]

Did this go through in the end?

[ghost]

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

[Tracerneo]

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 to any other OSI-approved license

(This concerns one commit changing video/out/x11_common.c authored by me.)