[FFmpeg-devel] [FFmpeg-cvslog] doc: chromaprint

Gyan Doshi gyandoshi at gmail.com
Tue Dec 4 18:10:19 EET 2018

On 04-12-2018 09:28 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> 2018-12-04 16:51 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi <gyandoshi at gmail.com>:
>> On 04-12-2018 08:44 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>>> 2018-12-04 15:52 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi <gyandoshi at gmail.com>:
>>>> On 04-12-2018 08:05 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>>>>> 2018-12-04 14:53 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi <gyandoshi at gmail.com>:
>>>>>> My commits simply convey that into the docs - it doesn't create
>>>>>> a new judgement or make one where none existed.
>>>>> It claims something (that may or may not be correct) instead of
>>>>> leaving the responsibility with the distributor (who alone has this
>>>>> responsibility).
>>>> How does that square with the license mentions for the other libraries I
>>>> listed?
>>>> e.g.
>>>>        x264 is under the GNU Public License Version 2 or later
>>>> Gyan
>>>> P.S. Mentioned removed from my commits.
>>> Sorry for being - once again! - so unclear:
>>> My true concern is of course the wording about libfdk. Yesterday
>>> several people voiced their opinion that libfdk is not compatible
>>> with the LGPL, which we both do not share. But while I will be
>>> completely relaxed once a judge confirms that I am wrong, I
>>> wonder how you will react...
>> FDK-AAC was a product developed by an entity for commercial purposes.
> Yes. (how is this related?)

The odds of  worries being realized are vastly different.

But this is getting silly, so I'm out of this thread after this.

>> BTW, FSF deems FDK to be under a free license,
> Possible.


>> even if remaining silent about LGPL compatibility.
> Then I am even more impressed that you guarantee this
> compatibility!

No guarantees made.

The sentence is,

"To the best of our knowledge, it is compatible with the LGPL."

which is copied from /LICENSE as was pointed out to you in 


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list