If they are using FFmpeg according to LGPL, i.e as a library and are otherwise complying with the license terms then this seems to be ok. But they don't seem to comply since they would have had to provide the source code of the whole library, including their changes. Only one source file doesn't seem to be the whole library. Did they provide the LGPL license text with the product?
Claus-Peter > Am 23.08.2014 um 08:46 schrieb "Bug Ficks" <[email protected]>: > > Hello, > > about 4 weeks ago I've emailed Samsung about a license violation in one > of their core libraries used in their SmartTVs. They've copied and > renamed some parts from FFmpeg. > Yesterday they finally released "source" which was exactly one .c and > one .h file with code copied from FFmpeg plus a bunch of precompiled files. > Since FFmpeg can be used with either GPL or LGPL my question is, can > Samsung decide to use LGPL after they've already been caught in a > license violation? > > Kind Regards, > -bugficks > ________________________________ BearingPoint GmbH Geschäftsführer: Marcel Nickler (Vorsitzender), Hans-Werner Wurzel (stellv. Vorsitzender), Kiumars Hamidian, Kai Wächter, Dr. Robert Wagner Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Beat Leimbacher Sitz: Frankfurt am Main Registergericht: Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main HRB 55490 The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to or forward a copy of this message to the sender and delete the message, any attachments, and any copies thereof from your system.
