Hi, On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 10:07 AM Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote:
> Carl Eugen Hoyos (12019-09-21): > > I now wonder if this isn't much nicer than "You may use this FDK AAC > > Codec software or modifications thereto only for purposes that are > > authorized by appropriate patent licenses." > > (In the sense that it doesn't try to conceal the true terms) > > It is not "nicer", it is incompetent. If you read the whole COPYING file > from libg722_1: > > > https://github.com/traviscross/freeswitch/blob/master/libs/libg722_1/COPYING > > you realize is is not actually a license: is does not contain anything > that gives the authorization to use their code. > > Compare to the license of fdk-aac, which is proper legalese, gives > explicitly the right to use the code, and has been vetted by Debian. OK, hold on guys, wait. I had to read this 3x and it took me a while to get to this point (in my head). Others may be similarly confused. So it appears, from the discussion (..), that although there is source code, it is not actually "open" in the sense that it's not redistributable (at least not explicitly so) or modifiable? If I were hosting a copy on, say, github (or Debian), I'd be in legal trouble with this Freeswitch company? That's a serious issue, and I'd tend to agree with Nicolas we then probably don't want to link to such code... Or do I misunderstand? Ronald _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
