Le primidi 21 vendémiaire, an CCXXI, Michael Zucchi a écrit :
> Of course, apk's and the android shop are somewhat problematic wrt
> to the second point. If you used the 'shop', then you actually got
> the application from google. So you are quite entitled to ask
> google for the source as they w
On 11/10/12 04:04, Matthew Lawrence wrote:
I recently purchased an app from Google Play that incorporates the
FFmpeg library. Because the app is a derivative work under the
LGPLv2.1, I believe I am entitled to a copy of the source code for the
entire app. I have e-mailed the developer's support
Hi Lou!
Lou writes:
> The Hall of Shame no longer exists (a page
> exists without entries, but I think it is
> orphaned from the menu/legal page).
> It was a maintenance burden,
Sorry, but this is simply not true.
> its effectiveness was questionable,
>and it was getting really long.
And
Le nonidi 19 vendémiaire, an CCXXI, Michael Bradshaw a écrit :
> Sorry, I meant the only two things I see as options for the FFmpeg
> project is putting them on a wall of shame or hiring a lawyer and
> suing, neither of which I expect to happen. I didn't word that very
> well.
In this particular c
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Michael Bradshaw wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I meant the only two things I see as options for the FFmpeg
>> project is putting them on a wall of shame or hiring a lawyer and
>> suing, neither of which I expect to happen. I didn
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Michael Bradshaw wrote:
> Sorry, I meant the only two things I see as options for the FFmpeg
> project is putting them on a wall of shame or hiring a lawyer and
> suing, neither of which I expect to happen. I didn't word that very
> well.
The Hall of Shame no long
You could start by CC'ing the party in question.
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:34:16PM -0500, Matthew Lawrence wrote:
> I recently purchased an app from Google Play that incorporates the FFmpeg
> library. Because the app is a derivative work under the LGPLv2.1, I
> believe I am entitled to a copy o
Le nonidi 19 vendémiaire, an CCXXI, Matthew Lawrence a écrit :
> I recently purchased an app from Google Play that incorporates the FFmpeg
> library. Because the app is a derivative work under the LGPLv2.1, I
> believe I am entitled to a copy of the source code for the entire app. I
> have e-mail
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Michael Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Matthew Lawrence
> wrote:
>>[...]
>
>> What steps can I take (other than hiring a lawyer) to assert my rights?
>
> Pretty much nothing. You can ask for it all you want, and they can say
> no all they want
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Matthew Lawrence
wrote:
>[...]
> What steps can I take (other than hiring a lawyer) to assert my rights?
Pretty much nothing. You can ask for it all you want, and they can say
no all they want. IANAL, so I've no clue who's in the right, but if
you really want it
Matthew Lawrence writes:
> I recently purchased an app from Google Play that
> incorporates the FFmpeg library. Because the app is a
> derivative work under the LGPLv2.1, I believe I am
> entitled to a copy of the source code for the entire app.
Apart from what was already said (LGPL does no
On 10 Oct 2012 21:09, "Matthew Lawrence" wrote:
>
> Can you provide a citation for your claim?
>
> Section 5 of the LGPLv2.1 states in part:
>
> "5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but
> is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it,
On 10/10/2012 03:09 PM, Matthew Lawrence wrote:
Under the first paragraph, the app is a "work that
uses the Library". However, because the work is distributed
together with the Library in a single executable (DEX file within
an APK), the work is not "in isolation"
Then talk to a lawyer about your rights to sue if that's your interpretation.
Do you even know if it is statically linked? Because the free software
foundation consensus is that runtime linking is ok since YOU the user is doing
the violation not the deployment media.
Besides...Bringing it up he
Can you provide a citation for your claim?
Section 5 of the LGPLv2.1 states in part:
"5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library,
but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with
it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in iso
On 10/10/2012 01:34 PM, Matthew Lawrence wrote:
> I recently purchased an app from Google Play that incorporates the FFmpeg
> library. Because the app is a derivative work under the LGPLv2.1, I
> believe I am entitled to a copy of the source code for the entire app. I
> have e-mailed the develope
El 10/10/2012 02:34 p.m., Matthew Lawrence escribió:
I recently purchased an app from Google Play that incorporates the
FFmpeg library. Because the app is a derivative work under the
LGPLv2.1, I believe I am entitled to a copy of the source code for the
entire app. I have e-mailed the develop
I recently purchased an app from Google Play that incorporates the FFmpeg
library. Because the app is a derivative work under the LGPLv2.1, I
believe I am entitled to a copy of the source code for the entire app. I
have e-mailed the developer's support staff, but they are refusing to
release the
18 matches
Mail list logo
