[gstreamer-bugs] [Bug 357069] [rganalysis] New element: ReplayGain analysis

[GStreamer (bugzilla.gnome.org)]

Do not reply to this via email (we are currently unable to handle email
responses and they get discarded).  You can add comments to this bug at
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=357069

GStreamer | gst-plugins-bad | Ver: HEAD CVS





------- Comment #4 from René Stadler  2006-09-30 15:47 UTC -------
In the light of a new day, I see things a bit clearer.  Aside from changing the
bitfields to gboolean, I have to dismiss all you claims:

The ||= operator you mentioned on IRC does not seem to exist, at least my
compiler does not seem to know about it.  Rewriting the part that uses |= to
use || would create more problems than it solves I think.

About the licensing: I changed the comment about the origin to explicitly state
that it is originally based on gain_analysis.c from vorbisgain version 0.34. 
This file states that it is under LGPL (like vorbisgain itself).

Yes, there are other programs that incorporate derivations of that file
(mp3gain, wavegain, *whatever*gain), and yes, some of these programs are GPL
instead of LGPL.  Your concern seems to stem from this fact.  Yes, it would be
illegal to distribute this file as LGPL if it was GPL originally (without
permission from the original authors).  One can turn any piece of LGPL code
into GPL but not the other way around (except for the copyright holders of
course).

But there is no indication that this was done.  All instances of the file state
that they are LGPL.  Even if there *was* a variant of the file somewhere that
got turned into GPL (which anybody can do legally), there would be no doubt
since there is at least one instance with LGPL.  If we cannot trust the
copyright/license header in this regard, well, we cannot trust anything.  By
the same paranoid logic, the email address could be fake and the person
answering my confirmation could just pretend to be the copyright holder.

The truth is most probably that there is no such conspiracy going on and that
the code is simply LGPL, as is correctly stated _everywhere_.  Glen Sawyer
probably thinks I'm a complete moron for making him confirm the obvious.

I hope you agree and the slightly revised variant I will provide can go in (and
will end up in -good and not -ugly in the future).  Otherwise, please point out
the flaw in my argumentation or reformulate your concern.  Thank you.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.