On Apr 4, 2016 5:12 PM, "Reimar Döffinger" <reimar.doeffin...@gmx.de> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 03:48:38PM -0400, Aaron Boxer wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Reimar Döffinger < reimar.doeffin...@gmx.de> > > wrote: > > > > > The really huge, gigantic, elephant sized issue with AGPL for me is > > > that it is _completely_ unclear to me what you actually have to > > > do to fulfill the license requirements of that "frankenmonster". > > > > > > > Read the license, then. > > Which tells me exactly NOTHING. > It says each piece is covered by ITS license. > I.e. there isn't ONE license that covers the whole > thing?! > Their nice compatibility matrix shows what applies for > other license combinations, but they left the AGPLv3 > out of that one! > The license also never defines what exactly > "if you modify the Program" would mean > (so, if a company, for example Canonical, modified it and > never gave me the source or even told me it was modified, > is only the company in trouble or am I too? If I am, > that's a problem, if I am not that's a loophole almost > as big as the one it meant to fix).
Good question. There are legal grey zones for all licences. Doesn't mean we have to stop using them > > > > No restrictions on use makes GPL very simple: if you don't > > > redistribute, you don't need to do anything. > > > What if you somehow got an OS image that happens to use > > > a FFmpeg compiled against AGPL components (without you being > > > aware, since you never use or care about the AGPL parts) > > > and then use FFmpeg to stream over the net (or even your proprietary > > > code), are you suddenly in violation of the license? > > > > > > > What if you get a version of FFmeg compiled against GPLv3, without being > > aware that this is the case, > > and then combine it with a proprietary application ? Same situation. > > No, absolutely no problem. None at all. Completely fine. > Sure if you pass it on you have to check things (but also, > only if you distribute the FFmpeg compiled as GPLv3, not if > you simply distribute your binary, and also not if you > distribute e.g. within your organization). > And by accident distributing binary doesn't really happen, > whereas accidentally having a server service run or exposed > wider than expected happens all the time. > > > If the answer is "yes", I am against such a version of FFmpeg > > > working without each _use_ of it requiring a special action > > > that confirms users are aware of the license obligations. > > > > > > > The same logic applies to GPLv3 distributions of FFmpeg. > > There is NO way that simply RUNNING a GPLv3 version of FFmpeg > EVER triggers ANY license obligation. > ________ I could give you an OS image that has a version of FFmpeg that uses proprietary codecs. If you run it without knowing and without paying license, then you have a similar problem. Should we then ban closed source codecs from FFmpeg? Cheers, Aaron _______________________________________ > 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
