Ali KIZIL (2018-12-04): > Personally, I do not believe they break the license on purpose. If so, they
They are a commercial entity, they have a legal department. "Not on purpose" is not an excuse for them. > wouldn't announce it. They would fo as some others do, by trying hide. So > personally, I think removal of code is a very strong decision for this > kind of revertible violation, as Newtek also gets in response asap. The only acceptable response from them now is to comply with the GPL. This is exactly how the GPL is stated: a failure to comply with the copyleft clauses rescinds all rights to use the original GPLed code. Note that they did not only infringe on FFmpeg's license, they also infringed on x264. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
