On 10/10/2012 03:09 PM, Matthew Lawrence wrote:Under the first paragraph, the app is a "work that uses the Library". However, because the work is distributed together with the Library in a single executable (DEX file within an APK), the work is not "in isolation" and is therefore not outside the scope of the License. Instead, the second paragraph applies. When they build the APK from source, they are statically linking the "work that uses the Library" with the Library. The final product (the APK and the DEX file inside it) is a derivative work because it contains the Library. This is precisely the condition covered by Paragraph 2 of Section 5. As a result, the APK is covered by the License, and they are bound by Section 6 which requires them to distribute the source of their "work that uses the Library" to anyone who requests it. I'm not familiar with DEX semantics; but if it's a single standalone executable (like .exe), that you are right. Both the spirit and the letter of the LGPL require that you are able to recompile the LGPLed lib yourself and use your version with the provided executable. This is usually done with .dll or shared libraries of some sort on Windows and Linux respectively. However, assuming that is indeed the case and they are, indeed, in violation of the LGPL - only the copyright holder can take any action or has any rights in this matter. Unless you hold a copyright over ffmpeg, you have no legal standing (inspite of the fact the LGPL was designed to protect YOUR rights; since it is implemented through copyrights, only the rights owner has legal standing) I think the EFF runs "name and shame" campaigns, but I don't know if they'll bother unless contacted by the rights holder. (And they will only pursue legal action if you assign copyright to them). |
_______________________________________________ Libav-user mailing list [email protected] http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-user
