On 04/04/2016 14:21, Aaron Boxer wrote: > All of your arguments could be applied equally to GPL v3 components. And > yet, > FFmpeg is happy to allow distribution under GPL v3. So, I don't see what > the problem is here. The problem is AGPL can make certain builds of FFmpeg _unusable_, it's a pain to work with. Most of all, people just don't want AGPL in FFmpeg. As wm4 said: "If you really want your lib to be useful, you should relicense it to LGPL2.1 or later". > > Yes, Google has a no-AGPL policy, so they won't be able to use it. I am > sure they will > survive somehow without my J2k codec. A lot of people could survive without it. In-fact, I reckon everyone who is currently using FFmpeg could.
On 04/04/2016 14:24, Aaron Boxer wrote: > 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. I'm almost 100% sure they do, I think it's you who rather doesn't understand the issues involved with putting AGPL into FFmpeg. Josh
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
