Hi Hendrik, On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Hendrik Leppkes <h.lepp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Aaron Boxer <boxe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Michael Niedermayer > <mich...@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 > and > >> > Grok master, for J2K support. The comment on the commit has all of > the > >> > details; the main change is to remove the OPJ_STATIC flag from > configure, > >> > 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 > GPL > >> > 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 > computer > >> network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to > >> receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to > the > >> 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. Cheers, Aaron > - Hendrik > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
