the following is two posts replied to my post of consulting the legal
problem with FFmpeg
>>>>>>>>>>
*William A. Rowe, Jr.*
发送至 legal-discuss
显示详细信息 9月25日
回复
Samul Kevin wrote:
>
> You can use libavcodec or libavformat in your commercial program, but
> /any patch you make must be published/. The best way to proceed is to
> send your patches to the FFmpeg mailing list.
>
> here is the url of the general faq:http://ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu/general.html
# Contributions should be licensed under the LGPL 2.1, including an "or any
later version" clause, or the MIT license. GPL 2
including an "or any later version" clause is also acceptable, but LGPL is
preferred.
Wow. That's fairly ambiguous.
I don't know how this is going to pan out, but thought I should pass on the
relevant quotation.
Shipping LGPL isn't allowed, but as an /optional/ dependency it's possible
for projects to offer support to it.
>>>>>>>>>>
Samul Kevin wrote:
>
> 2008/9/25 William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Shipping LGPL isn't allowed, but as an /optional/ dependency it's
> > possible for projects to offer support to it.
>
Please review http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html and discuss with
the incubating project's mentors. This issue was asked and answered about
two years ago when bluesky sought incubation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I checked the "resolved" page and found the following words:
>>
GNU LGPLThe LGPL is ineligible primarily due to the restrictions it places
on larger works, violating the third license criterion. Therefore,
LGPL-licensed works must not be included in Apache products.>>Since no other
people in leagl discussion mailing list replied my post. I thought that's a
veto to use ffmpeg. If i misunderstood something , please tell me. We do
need advices to improve our work at apache.
Bowen
2008/11/20 Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi bluesky people, I was on the board call today and read your report
> regarding the ffmpeg dependency. I'm on the Legal PMC and am hoping
> that by coming over to your list I can help with the licensing
> checklist as you guys seem to be more complex license wise than an
> incubator project usually is.
>
> My initial question for you is where you currently are on legal
> issues? What's open, what's resolved etc?
>
> Hopefully I can be of use,
>
> Hen
>
--
Bowen Ma a.k.a Samul Kevin @ Bluesky Dev Team XJTU
