On 19.10.2016 20:46, Sven C. Dack wrote: > No. This is exactly what I meant with wearing tin foil hats.
Insults won't help you. > Just because a compiler includes information provided by header > files into the compilation process does this not imply a transfer > of ownership or copyright of this information. The header files > do not become a part of the source code. You may find the ownership > and copyright only no longer being easily distinguishable once it > becomes a binary. The seperation is however still present and there > is no magical transfer of ownership happening here. Even if there > was, who is to say ffmpeg isn't becoming part of the header files > and thus is now being owned by Nvidia?!? I wrote nothing about ownership. > For this reason can such an interpretation of the GPL not make > good sense. It's just absurd. Have you actually read the license? It clearly defines what complete source code means: "For a library, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the library." The FAQ explains this as [1]: "For a typical C program, this translates into all the source code (.c files) plus header files (.h files) plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation." > How is this with compiling under Windows or just using Intel's or > Microsoft's compiler? Does this make ffmpeg non-free or does ffmpeg > there claiming ownership over Intel's or Microsoft's header files? Read the FAQ: "What about the compiler, the toolchain?" Best regards, Andreas 1: http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq/ _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
