[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Martin Lambers
Subject: Re: [Mingw-cross-env-list] Binaries using ffmpeg unredistributable
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 20:32:58 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6

On 07/12/10 16:09, Tony Theodore 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.

I just re-read the LGPL and some comments and opinions on it, and I now
realize that you are right - I somehow missed that aspect of the LGPL.
Thanks for pointing this out!


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]