[Libav-user] Question about the libraries' naming and rule #16
alexcohn at netvision.net.il
Thu Jun 9 06:04:30 CEST 2011
> you still have to comply with the LGPL's rules on making the source code and build details available
But do not fall into another extreme, your server should not provide
an alternative branch for FFmpeg development. Keep a snapshot of the
exact state of the LGPL code you've linked against available, but also
provide instructions how you arrived to this from the source tree
available @ffmpeg.org. This way, if someone wants to apply a new
version of the library, he/she will not need to start with reverse
engineering your build process.
On Wednesday, June 8, 2011, Phil Turmel <philip at turmel.org> wrote:
> On 06/08/2011 02:24 AM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Soltic Lucas <soltic.lucas at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> From what you say, I suppose I shouldn't even care for that kind of issue, and should statically link my library against FFmpeg, as LGPL is not a problem to me. Actually I'm getting a bit lost between those who say it's possible, and those who say it's not (easily).
>> If your code is (L)GPL itself, then you really don't need to worry
>> about this much. Include the GPL license file, mention that you're
>> using ffmpeg under the (L)GPL, and link it the way you prefer to. You
>> should probably mention against which version your program was linked,
>> and provide any changes you applied to ffmpeg (if any at all).
> This is very bad advice, IMO. If you distribute FFmpeg with your application, even if your application is open source, you still have to comply with the LGPL's rules on making the source code and build details available. Even if ffmpeg.org ceases to exist in the future. Or they prune their archives, deleting the specific version you shipped. On top of that, you would be hijacking the download bandwidth of ffmpeg's server to meet another projects' obligations.
> Libav-user mailing list
> Libav-user at ffmpeg.org
More information about the Libav-user