Reimar Döffinger <[email protected]> added the comment: On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 08:54:11AM +0000, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > > Carl Eugen Hoyos <[email protected]> added the comment: > > No, Chroma was listed originally because its license was not LGPL-compatible, > and it is still listed, because you don't even try to completely fulfil > section > 4 of the LGPL.
Well, section 6 can be applied alternatively. I currently do not see it fulfilled either though (even ignoring the word "prominent" in there), because 6a) definitely is not the case 6b) is not the case (it requires "copy of the library already present on the user's computer system") 6c) at least I have not noticed such an offer 6d) would be what you asked for I think 6e) I'd say obviously not While I sure can understand some frustration, I can't see the results so far justify any outrage from the Chroma developer's side. Feel free to flame me for it, but my impression is not that "have made every effort from day one to be completely compliant" included _carefully_ reading the license, and I'd like to point out that _everyone_ claims to have done their best so you must excuse us for being tired of it. ____________________________________________________ FFmpeg issue tracker <[email protected]> <https://roundup.ffmpeg.org/roundup/ffmpeg/issue726> ____________________________________________________
