On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 11:00 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2018-05-29 6:53 GMT+02:00, Gyan Doshi <gyando...@gmail.com>: >> >> On 29-05-2018 03:34 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> >>> Just remove "and is not known...", > >>> please don't state that you guarantee >>> they are compatible. > > Where should we sent people who trust what you wrote in the > documentation but had to find out it isn't correct? > >> If we are continuing to permit LGPL compilation, shouldn't it be >> >> "The Fraunhofer AAC library is licensed under a license incompatible >> to the GPL. Therefore, for GPL builds, you have to pass >> @code{--enable-nonfree} to configure to use it. > >> To the best of our knowledge, it is compatible with the LGPL" ? > > I am curious because of your follow-up in another thread: > Why do you think it is compatible? > > Carl Eugen
IANAL, but here goes: I think the general idea was that since LGPL lets you link an LGPL library in a proprietary piece of software (given that you follow the spirit and language of LGPL by letting people build the same version and making it possible for the built version to be loaded up in the proprietary application), it probably works the other way as well. If you have a proprietary module that you have provided the necessary means to link against, an LGPL piece of software can utilize that as long as the LGPL part of the deal is kept. Of course the means to build this mish-mash is also to be provided to the user. I think VideoLAN's or FSF's or so lawyers looked into this before, although I might be incorrect. That is why non-free libraries tend to only be requiring a special flag that makes the result non-distributable if you don't enable GPL modules. Of course, the requirement for fdk-aac has lessened after the internal AAC encoder improved, but I still think some people are into it for one reason or another. Too bad its license is just incompatible with GPL (unless you remove all of the currently-still-patented stuff, I guess, since the license's "additional restraints" were dealing with patents. Which was the reading of the Red Hat lawyers - although I'm not sure what if anything at all they're linking against it in Fedora). Best regards, Jan _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel