Re: [Mingw-cross-env-list] Binaries using ffmpeg unredistributable

[Tony Theodore]

On 8 December 2010 02:09, Tony Theodore <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 8 December 2010 00:51, Martin Lambers <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On 07/12/10 14:01, Tony Theodore wrote:
>>> On 7 December 2010 20:16, Volker Grabsch <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> Martin Lambers <address@hidden> schrieb:
>>>>> It may be a good idea to remove at least --enable-nonfree, and I
>>>>> personally think that --enable-gpl and --enable-version3 should also be
>>>>> removed. Packages that want these features may add them locally, and all
>>>>> others are on the safe side.
>>>>
>>>> I fully agree, because ffmpeg is not a pure GPL-library. So I disabled
>>>> those three options:
>>>
>>> Static linking is a grey area, but the ffmpeg developers (among
>>> others) seem to consider it a violation of the LGPL [1].
>>
>> I do not interpret this text in this way; I think the recommendation of
>> dynamic linking has other reasons. To quote the first paragraph of the
>> text: "It is not the only way to comply with the license, but we think
>> it is the easiest. There are also a few items that are not really
>> related to LGPL compliance but are good ideas anyway."
>
> So I took the "good ideas" to be tarballs and svn diffs. The "easy"
> way is dynamic linking, the hard way is static linking and
> distributing object files so the end user can make modifications (or
> use newer versions of the LGPL software) and re-link if they like.

Ah, okay, it just clicked. For the diligent developer who is otherwise
complying with the LGPL, those options would cause them to
inadvertently violate it. It makes sense to remove those options.

There's still a general discussion about the LGPL and static linking.
Is most people's understanding that if they don't want to supply
source code, they still need to provide object files?

Cheers,

Tony