Le decadi 20 frimaire, an CCXXIV, Andreas Cadhalpun a écrit : > Using the header, one could create a dummy libfoo.so containing only > stub functions.
Exactly. > I don't think the FSF would agree [1]. They do not make the law. Claiming that the GPL enforces more than it can is obviously their game. > The GPL does not require that programs can run, only that distributors > provide the source code of everything that is needed to run the program, > except system libraries. > > So you can distribute e.g. a GPL binary linking with libfoo.so, without > distributing libfoo.so, as long as you distribute the source code > of libfoo.so. > However, claiming that libfoo.so is not required to run the binary > would be bizarre. Once again, exactly. I agree that having the program not work at all would probably not be sustainable. But for an optional feature (a codec, for example), having a GPL-compatible stub libfoo.so that just prints "feature not available" is perfectly legal. And then, you just have to propose the customers to download, on their own responsibility, a proprietary libfoo.so. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
