On 07/11/2012 03:48 PM, Janne Grunau wrote: > On 2012-07-11 15:23:53 +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 04:19:46PM +0300, Martin Storsjö wrote : >>> That's the big question, IIRC j-b and Diego had differing views on >>> how to interpret it. >> >> "You may not charge copyright license fees for anyone to use, copy or >> distribute the FDK AAC Codec software or your modifications thereto." >> >> This looks like freeware, not open source, to me. >> >> It is allowed to resell GPL binaries, and this provision blocks it; >> and it limits the usage of the software. > > But is that a "copyright license fee"? some GPL v2 quotes: > > | Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have > | the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for > | this service if you wish) > > | You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, > | and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange > | for a fee. > > | BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE > > I agree that it's a bit irky and I would ask at least one lawyer > before considering it (L)GPL compatible.
I'd add something along those lines in the boilerplate for the wrapper and consider it free. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
