Henry is trying to find out if there are any open legal issues other then the ones already discussed in legal-discuss. So, apart from FFmpeg and libstdc++, is there any other legal issues that still need to be investigated ?
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Samul Kevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/
