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
Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com writes:
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
Quoting Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez (2013-05-10 13:28:20)
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
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,
Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com:
Is fdk-aac finally the first *free* high-quality AAC encoder or is it
just the next *non-free* one after FAAC?
From what I've read, FAAC is not a high-quality AAC encoder. As far as
I know, fdk-aac is the only high-quality open-source AAC encoder.
I
On 09/05/13 23:27, Adam M. Costello wrote:
Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com:
Is fdk-aac finally the first *free* high-quality AAC encoder or is it
just the next *non-free* one after FAAC?
From what I've read, FAAC is not a high-quality AAC encoder. As far as
I know, fdk-aac is the
Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com writes:
On 09/05/13 23:27, Adam M. Costello wrote:
Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com:
Of course, the library would be much more useful if avconv could use it.
If libfdk-aac is GPL-incompatible, what does that imply? That avconv
must not
Been reading the license. It's nice to point out explicit terms that
are deemed non-free to back-up any claim, otherwise it sounds like
FUD..
The part of the license that does not seem DFSG-compliant to me is this one:
You may not charge copyright license fees for anyone to use, copy or
8 matches
Mail list logo
