Am Sa., 21. Sept. 2019 um 16:51 Uhr schrieb Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com>:
> 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? (Afaik) Freeswitch is a distributor of binaries based on FFmpeg's and Polycom's source code. Freeswitch also hosts Polycom's source code. It appears to me that Freeswitch claims that while libg7221 is not a Free library (and has a license incompatible with the GPL), it is "open source" and can be distributed. > That's a serious issue, and I'd tend to agree with Nicolas we then > probably don't want to link to such code... I still wonder what the difference between the libraries that are only allowed to be used with a patent license is... Carl Eugen PS: In case this isn't obvious: We should of course improve our existing related decoder instead of linking a non-free library. I just believe that the used argumentation is surprisingly weak. And I still wonder why the mentioned patch wasn't published for interested parties... _______________________________________________ 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".