2008/11/20 Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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 > > <snipping thread from legal-discuss@> > > > 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 legal 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. > > You've definitely understood things - my concern is to make sure that > we've understood your use case. The question of LGPL in an Apache > product is not an easy one. Can I see the source code to understand > how ffmpeg is hooked in and then make sure that there is a veto on > using ffmpeg?
>>really appriciate your help. Since we can't post the source code in mailing list. So i'll do my best to make our website open to the outnet as quickly as possible. Thanks Bowen > > > Also, referencing Luciano's reply, are there any other issues I can > help with while I'm here? > > Thanks, > > Hen > -- Bowen Ma a.k.a Samul Kevin @ Bluesky Dev Team XJTU
