On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Reimar Döffinger <reimar.doeffin...@gmx.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 10:51:23AM -0700, Timothy Gu wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 03, 2016 at 05:34:15PM -0400, Aaron Boxer wrote: > > Also it should be made clear that if Grok is linked into FFmpeg, the > resulting > > binary is a mixture of AGPL and GPL works. If --enable-gpl or > > --enable-version3 is not enabled, the compilation should fail. > > > > If there isn't a way to detect Grok from OpenJPEG, there should be one. > > > > If it is not clear to you why we are so against AGPL, it is because it > incurs > > additional restrictions on the work that we don't consider to be in the > spirit > > of free software, regardless of what FSF says. But I think you already > know > > about that. > > The really huge, gigantic, elephant sized issue with AGPL for me is > that it is _completely_ unclear to me what you actually have to > do to fulfill the license requirements of that "frankenmonster". > Read the license, then. > No restrictions on use makes GPL very simple: if you don't > redistribute, you don't need to do anything. > What if you somehow got an OS image that happens to use > a FFmpeg compiled against AGPL components (without you being > aware, since you never use or care about the AGPL parts) > and then use FFmpeg to stream over the net (or even your proprietary > code), are you suddenly in violation of the license? > What if you get a version of FFmeg compiled against GPLv3, without being aware that this is the case, and then combine it with a proprietary application ? Same situation. If the answer is "yes", I am against such a version of FFmpeg > working without each _use_ of it requiring a special action > that confirms users are aware of the license obligations. > The same logic applies to GPLv3 distributions of FFmpeg. Aaron _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel