John Dexter <jdxsolutions@...> writes: > obviously I have no problem providing source if asked to,
You misunderstand: If you don't want to "accompany" your binary distribution with the corresponding source code, you have to add a legally binding written offer that you will provide the source code on request. This may have been useful at a time when there was no internet but expensive discs, to save you from that burden nowadays, we recommend you to ... > and in putting the license in my redistributable. > I read somewhere that including a link to where users could download > the source themselves can be counted as "distributing the source"? ... do exactly this as explained on http://ffmpeg.org/legal.html (because we think you can argue that the corresponding sources "accompany" the binary distribution both if you distribute them together in the same installation package and also if you provide the sources as a separate link next to the download link for your installer. If you don't trust me on this because you interpret "accompany" differently then you will have to add the source code to the installer, remember I am not a native speaker.) > I was very surprised by claims it's a requirement, simply because none > of the LGPL libraries I've used have ever mentioned it in the case of > dynamic linking. Please read http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary and for the sake of our discussion assume that it was written by the very same person who wrote the license. Carl Eugen _______________________________________________ Libav-user mailing list Libav-user@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-user