On 6 February 2012 17:14, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceho...@ag.or.at> wrote: > John Dexter <jdxsolutions@...> writes: > > > obviously I have no problem providing source if asked to, > > You misunderstand: > If you don't want to "accompany" your binary distribution with the > corresponding source code, you have to add a legally binding written > offer that you will provide the source code on request. > This may have been useful at a time when there was no internet > but expensive discs, to save you from that burden nowadays, > we recommend you to ... > > > and in putting the license in my redistributable. > > > I read somewhere that including a link to where users could download > > the source themselves can be counted as "distributing the source"? > > ... do exactly this as explained on http://ffmpeg.org/legal.html > (because we think you can argue that the corresponding sources > "accompany" the binary distribution both if you distribute > them together in the same installation package and also if you > provide the sources as a separate link next to the download link > for your installer. If you don't trust me on this because you > interpret "accompany" differently then you will have to add the source > code to the installer, remember I am not a native speaker.) > > > I was very surprised by claims it's a requirement, simply because none > > of the LGPL libraries I've used have ever mentioned it in the case of > > dynamic linking. > > Please read > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary > and for the sake of our discussion assume that it was written > by the very same person who wrote the license.
Thanks Carl.
_______________________________________________ Libav-user mailing list Libav-user@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-user
