On 04-12-2018 09:28 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
2018-12-04 16:51 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi <gyando...@gmail.com>:
On 04-12-2018 08:44 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
2018-12-04 15:52 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi <gyando...@gmail.com>:
On 04-12-2018 08:05 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
2018-12-04 14:53 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi <gyando...@gmail.com>:
My commits simply convey that into the docs - it doesn't create
a new judgement or make one where none existed.
It claims something (that may or may not be correct) instead of
leaving the responsibility with the distributor (who alone has this
responsibility).
How does that square with the license mentions for the other libraries I
listed?
e.g.
x264 is under the GNU Public License Version 2 or later
Gyan
P.S. Mentioned removed from my commits.
Sorry for being - once again! - so unclear:
My true concern is of course the wording about libfdk. Yesterday
several people voiced their opinion that libfdk is not compatible
with the LGPL, which we both do not share. But while I will be
completely relaxed once a judge confirms that I am wrong, I
wonder how you will react...
FDK-AAC was a product developed by an entity for commercial purposes.
Yes. (how is this related?)
The odds of worries being realized are vastly different.
But this is getting silly, so I'm out of this thread after this.
BTW, FSF deems FDK to be under a free license,
Possible.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#fdk
even if remaining silent about LGPL compatibility.
Then I am even more impressed that you guarantee this
compatibility!
No guarantees made.
The sentence is,
"To the best of our knowledge, it is compatible with the LGPL."
which is copied from /LICENSE as was pointed out to you in
http://www.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2018-June/231137.html
Gyan
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
