On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez
<clo...@igalia.com> wrote:
> On 10/05/13 07:41, Arto Jantunen wrote:
>> The difference between the GPL and the LGPL does solve the problem if
>> the program you are developing wants to link to both LGPL licensed and
>> GPL incompatible libraries, assuming that the license of the program
>> itself is not either GPL or LGPL. Parts of libav are GPL and the rest is
>> LGPL, thus the problem remains.
>
> So the problem all boils down that the fact that libav contains GPL code?
>
> I was supposing that libav was 100% LGPL (with no GPL code). If libav
> contains GPL code then the whole viral nature of the GPL license will
> entangle everything. AFAIK there is no practical difference between
> being libav 100% GPL or beeing libav 1% GPL. You have to obey the GPL in
> both cases, which means that you can't link libav with GPL-incompatible
> license software.
>
> Isn't it?
In Debian and Ubuntu, we ship two flavors of libavcodec, one that is
GPLv2 licensed, and one that is GPLv3 licensed. None of them is LGPL.
HTH.
--
regards,
Reinhard
_______________________________________________
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
