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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caj0ccead_x9fpqlytqhaexdodkx_zu7yqwac1xtc6+yu-f3...@mail.gmail.com