[FFmpeg-devel] Support master branch of OpenJPEG and Grok J2K codecs
boxerab at gmail.com
Mon Apr 4 15:24:41 CEST 2016
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Hendrik Leppkes <h.leppkes at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Aaron Boxer <boxerab at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Michael Niedermayer
> <michael at niedermayer.cc>
> > wrote:
> >> On Sun, Apr 03, 2016 at 05:31:25PM -0400, Aaron Boxer wrote:
> >> > Hi Folks,
> >> >
> >> > Here is a small patch to get FFmpeg working with both OpenJPEG master
> >> > Grok master, for J2K support. The comment on the commit has all of
> >> > details; the main change is to remove the OPJ_STATIC flag from
> >> > so that FFmpeg can be configured with a dynamic build of both codecs.
> >> >
> >> > I also want to reiterate that because FFmpeg can be distributed under
> >> > v3, and Grok is licensed under the AGPL, there are no licensing issues
> >> > regarding distributing FFmpeg together with Grok.
> >> FFmpeg support a wide varity of network protools, from low level
> >> tcp&udp to higher level http, ftp, rtp, rtsp, rtmp, mms, ...
> >> the AGPL requires "if you modify the Program, your modified version must
> >> prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a
> >> network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to
> >> receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to
> >> Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some
> >> standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software."
> >> yet you here suggest to link AGPL software to GPL where the GPL sw
> >> will not offer any source though any of its quite numerous network
> >> interfaces
> >> Iam no lawyer so i dont know if you can do that or not but
> >> either the combination needs to offer source code through its network
> >> protocols or you just suggested to circumvent your own licenses main
> >> point
> > Here is clarification from the horse's mouth AKA FSF:
> You should understand one thing:
> For us, its not really about if its legally possible to link to such a
> library, but if we want to open the door to such licensed libraries.
> And the answer to that question seems to go in favor of no.
Of course, it is not my place to say what should happen with the project.
I just want to make sure everyone understands the issues involved
before making a decision.
> - Hendrik
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
More information about the ffmpeg-devel