Le duodi 22 frimaire, an CCXXIV, Andreas Cadhalpun a écrit : > I don't agree as I have already explained previously.
Fortunately, your arguments have no legal standing. > Have a look at what some of the proprietary licenses require for distribution > that has absolutely nothing to do with how the binary was built. A lot of licenses have crazy and illegal clauses. > For example, a license could allow distribution only under full moon, > independently of when the binary was built. Fortunately, the (L)GPL does not have such a crazy rule. > Or, to take a more realistic example, the NVIDIA Software License [1] allows > redistribution of it's software only if it is "designed exclusively for use > on the Linux or FreeBSD operating systems". That's completely independent > of where or how the binary was built. Ditto. The (L)GPL does not have a rule against distributing a binary that can load a proprietary file. That would make ffmpeg all but useless, I hope you realize that, because most of the licenses for the multimedia files themselves are GPL-incompatible. Regards,
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
