FFmpeg Hall of Shame

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

FFmpeg Hall of Shame

Thirumalaisamy K
According to LGPL / GPL it's necessary to provide the complete source codes
which includes the objects that linked against and scripts that controls
the compilation & installation. But, the websites linked in official
download pages are not providing the complete sources. Only just leaving
the link for the official ffmpeg sources. I have mailed to some of them. I
have got the reply from one of them (evermeet.cx) that It's not necessary
to provide the build scripts & claimed it's made from his own hard works
and asked ffmpeg devs to contact him. It's quite unfortunate to see this
response from the maintainer of a officially recommended download
location.​ People are utilizing the hard work behind ffmpeg & refuses to
comply with LGPL. It's shame. And ffmpeg team recommends such download
locations.

Any comments from ffmpeg dev team?​
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFmpeg Hall of Shame

Carl Eugen Hoyos-2
2017-11-29 12:43 GMT+01:00 Thirumalaisamy K <[hidden email]>:
> According to LGPL / GPL it's necessary to provide the complete
> source codes which includes the objects that linked against and
> scripts that controls the compilation & installation.

I am not sure this is 100% correct.

> But, the websites linked in official download pages are not
> providing the complete sources. Only just leaving the link
> for the official ffmpeg sources. I have mailed to some of
> them. I have got the reply from one of them (evermeet.cx)

There are hundreds of FFmpeg copyright violators
that make a lot of money selling FFmpeg and there
is nothing we can do against them.
One copyright violator, Eric Carson, founder of
Digimetrics Hydra player even threatened me.

Why on earth are you attacking somebody who
helps FFmpeg users, has not even advertisement
on the homepage and provides all necessary
information you need?

It appears to me you are mixing up different
versions of the GPL.

Carl Eugen
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFmpeg Hall of Shame

Reindl Harald
In reply to this post by Thirumalaisamy K


Am 29.11.2017 um 12:43 schrieb Thirumalaisamy K:

> According to LGPL / GPL it's necessary to provide the complete source codes
> which includes the objects that linked against and scripts that controls
> the compilation & installation. But, the websites linked in official
> download pages are not providing the complete sources. Only just leaving
> the link for the official ffmpeg sources. I have mailed to some of them. I
> have got the reply from one of them (evermeet.cx) that It's not necessary
> to provide the build scripts & claimed it's made from his own hard works
> and asked ffmpeg devs to contact him. It's quite unfortunate to see this
> response from the maintainer of a officially recommended download
> location.​ People are utilizing the hard work behind ffmpeg & refuses to
> comply with LGPL. It's shame. And ffmpeg team recommends such download
> locations

WTF - ffmmpeg even displays the configure string and so you have all
informations how it was built

"which includes the objects that linked against" is nonsense, when YOU
LINK against some GPL sourced libs you need to provide YOUR source -
caus and affect inverted by you

and with "According to LGPL / GPL" you clearly show you have no idea
what you are talking about, otherwise you would know the differences of
both and that you can link against LGPL libraries without release youzr
sources under the same license

*jesus christ* ffmmpeg is linked against tons of other libraries and you
are inverting the intention of the GPL

[harry@srv-rhsoft:~]$ ffmpeg
ffmpeg version 3.4 Copyright (c) 2000-2017 the FFmpeg developers
   built with gcc 7 (GCC)
   configuration: --prefix=/usr/local --bindir=/usr/local/bin
--mandir=/usr/local/man --extra-cflags='-I/usr/local/x264 -m64 -O2 -g0
-mfpmath=sse -mavx -msse2avx -march=sandybridge -mtune=sandybridge
-fopenmp -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing -fomit-frame-pointer -fexceptions
-fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=6 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-Wstack-protector -Wformat -Werror=format-security -Ofast -ffast-math
-funsafe-math-optimizations -Wno-pointer-sign -minline-all-stringops
-fno-strict-aliasing -fuse-ld=gold -fuse-linker-plugin
-Wa,--noexecstack' --extra-ldflags='-I/usr/local/x264 -L/usr/local/x264
-ldl -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-z,now -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,-z,noexecstack -m64 -O2
-g0 -mfpmath=sse -mavx -msse2avx -march=sandybridge -mtune=sandybridge
-fopenmp -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing -fomit-frame-pointer -fexceptions
-fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=6 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-Wstack-protector -Wformat -Werror=format-security -Ofast -ffast-math
-funsafe-math-optimizations -Wno-pointer-sign -minline-all-stringops
-fno-strict-aliasing -pie -fPIE -fuse-ld=gold -fuse-linker-plugin
-Wa,--noexecstack' --ar=gcc-ar --ranlib=true --enable-nonfree
--enable-gpl --enable-pic --enable-version3 --enable-libmp3lame
--enable-libtheora --enable-libx264 --enable-libx265 --enable-libvpx
--enable-openssl --enable-static --enable-runtime-cpudetect
--disable-amd3dnow --disable-amd3dnowext --disable-avdevice
--disable-debug --disable-devices --disable-ffplay --disable-ffprobe
--disable-ffserver --disable-htmlpages --disable-hwaccels
--disable-iconv --disable-libdc1394 --disable-libfreetype
--disable-libgsm --disable-libopencore-amrnb --disable-libopencore-amrwb
--disable-libopencv --disable-libopenjpeg --disable-libopus
--disable-librtmp --disable-libspeex --disable-libvorbis
--disable-libxvid --disable-podpages --disable-postproc
--disable-protocol=gopher --disable-shared --disable-txtpages
   libavutil      55. 78.100 / 55. 78.100
   libavcodec     57.107.100 / 57.107.100
   libavformat    57. 83.100 / 57. 83.100
   libavfilter     6.107.100 /  6.107.100
   libswscale      4.  8.100 /  4.  8.100
   libswresample   2.  9.100 /  2.  9.100
Hyper fast Audio and Video encoder
usage: ffmpeg [options] [[infile options] -i infile]... {[outfile
options] outfile}...
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFmpeg Hall of Shame

Thirumalaisamy K
I know the difference between GPL and LGPL. But, in both you have to
disclose the sources including controlling scripts.

I agree that I can just dump the config parameters from the binary itself
using -buildconf. But, it doesn't mean that I can just reproduce the same
binary with the script. There is no guarantee that the releaser hasn't
modified the sources.

I am not blaming a particular person. I have checked both websites that
provides the static binary for win and mac. Both are not providing the
build scripts.

I agree that They are doing the pretty good job on maintaining the binary
for everyone. But, it's not good for such a supporter to break LGPL.

Just clear question whether it's required to release the control scripts
when one release a binary made from LGPL code?
If it's required, does ffmpeg team officially support the violation of LGPL
terms?


Regards,
*Thirumalaisamy K*

On 29 November 2017 at 17:58, Reindl Harald <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> Am 29.11.2017 um 12:43 schrieb Thirumalaisamy K:
>
>> According to LGPL / GPL it's necessary to provide the complete source
>> codes
>> which includes the objects that linked against and scripts that controls
>> the compilation & installation. But, the websites linked in official
>> download pages are not providing the complete sources. Only just leaving
>> the link for the official ffmpeg sources. I have mailed to some of them. I
>> have got the reply from one of them (evermeet.cx) that It's not necessary
>> to provide the build scripts & claimed it's made from his own hard works
>> and asked ffmpeg devs to contact him. It's quite unfortunate to see this
>> response from the maintainer of a officially recommended download
>> location.​ People are utilizing the hard work behind ffmpeg & refuses to
>> comply with LGPL. It's shame. And ffmpeg team recommends such download
>> locations
>>
>
> WTF - ffmmpeg even displays the configure string and so you have all
> informations how it was built
>
> "which includes the objects that linked against" is nonsense, when YOU
> LINK against some GPL sourced libs you need to provide YOUR source - caus
> and affect inverted by you
>
> and with "According to LGPL / GPL" you clearly show you have no idea what
> you are talking about, otherwise you would know the differences of both and
> that you can link against LGPL libraries without release youzr sources
> under the same license
>
> *jesus christ* ffmmpeg is linked against tons of other libraries and you
> are inverting the intention of the GPL
>
> [harry@srv-rhsoft:~]$ ffmpeg
> ffmpeg version 3.4 Copyright (c) 2000-2017 the FFmpeg developers
>   built with gcc 7 (GCC)
>   configuration: --prefix=/usr/local --bindir=/usr/local/bin
> --mandir=/usr/local/man --extra-cflags='-I/usr/local/x264 -m64 -O2 -g0
> -mfpmath=sse -mavx -msse2avx -march=sandybridge -mtune=sandybridge -fopenmp
> -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing -fomit-frame-pointer -fexceptions
> -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=6 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
> -Wstack-protector -Wformat -Werror=format-security -Ofast -ffast-math
> -funsafe-math-optimizations -Wno-pointer-sign -minline-all-stringops
> -fno-strict-aliasing -fuse-ld=gold -fuse-linker-plugin -Wa,--noexecstack'
> --extra-ldflags='-I/usr/local/x264 -L/usr/local/x264 -ldl -Wl,--as-needed
> -Wl,-z,now -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,-z,noexecstack -m64 -O2 -g0 -mfpmath=sse -mavx
> -msse2avx -march=sandybridge -mtune=sandybridge -fopenmp -pipe
> -fno-strict-aliasing -fomit-frame-pointer -fexceptions
> -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=6 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
> -Wstack-protector -Wformat -Werror=format-security -Ofast -ffast-math
> -funsafe-math-optimizations -Wno-pointer-sign -minline-all-stringops
> -fno-strict-aliasing -pie -fPIE -fuse-ld=gold -fuse-linker-plugin
> -Wa,--noexecstack' --ar=gcc-ar --ranlib=true --enable-nonfree --enable-gpl
> --enable-pic --enable-version3 --enable-libmp3lame --enable-libtheora
> --enable-libx264 --enable-libx265 --enable-libvpx --enable-openssl
> --enable-static --enable-runtime-cpudetect --disable-amd3dnow
> --disable-amd3dnowext --disable-avdevice --disable-debug --disable-devices
> --disable-ffplay --disable-ffprobe --disable-ffserver --disable-htmlpages
> --disable-hwaccels --disable-iconv --disable-libdc1394
> --disable-libfreetype --disable-libgsm --disable-libopencore-amrnb
> --disable-libopencore-amrwb --disable-libopencv --disable-libopenjpeg
> --disable-libopus --disable-librtmp --disable-libspeex --disable-libvorbis
> --disable-libxvid --disable-podpages --disable-postproc
> --disable-protocol=gopher --disable-shared --disable-txtpages
>   libavutil      55. 78.100 / 55. 78.100
>   libavcodec     57.107.100 / 57.107.100
>   libavformat    57. 83.100 / 57. 83.100
>   libavfilter     6.107.100 /  6.107.100
>   libswscale      4.  8.100 /  4.  8.100
>   libswresample   2.  9.100 /  2.  9.100
> Hyper fast Audio and Video encoder
> usage: ffmpeg [options] [[infile options] -i infile]... {[outfile options]
> outfile}...
>
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
>
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> [hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
>
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFmpeg Hall of Shame

Reindl Harald


Am 29.11.2017 um 14:47 schrieb Thirumalaisamy K:
> I know the difference between GPL and LGPL. But, in both you have to
> disclose the sources including controlling scripts.
>
> Just clear question whether it's required to release the control scripts
> when one release a binary made from LGPL code?

please quote me the part of GPL which says i need to provide a bash
script which *calls* configure, set some params, install build-requires
and *not links* and line of code


_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFmpeg Hall of Shame

Carl Eugen Hoyos-2
In reply to this post by Thirumalaisamy K
2017-11-29 14:47 GMT+01:00 Thirumalaisamy K <[hidden email]>:

> Just clear question whether it's required to release the control
> scripts when one release a binary made from LGPL code?

Why do you believe it is required / which scripts are you
talking about?

You seem to believe that it is (always) possible to recreate
identical binaries, I don't think this is true.

Please do not top-post here, Carl Eugen
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFmpeg Hall of Shame

drwho
In reply to this post by Reindl Harald


On 2017-11-29 08:58 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:

>
>
> Am 29.11.2017 um 14:47 schrieb Thirumalaisamy K:
>> I know the difference between GPL and LGPL. But, in both you have to
>> disclose the sources including controlling scripts.
>>
>> Just clear question whether it's required to release the control scripts
>> when one release a binary made from LGPL code?
>
> please quote me the part of GPL which says i need to provide a bash
> script which *calls* configure, set some params, install
> build-requires and *not links* and line of code
I don't think the "script which *calls* configure" is necessary, but
please be aware....

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#InstInfo

GPLv3 explicitly requires redistribution to include the full necessary
“Installation Information.” GPLv2 doesn't use that term, but it does
require redistribution to include "scripts used to control compilation
and installation of the executable" with the complete and corresponding
source code. This covers part, but not all, of what GPLv3 calls
“Installation Information.” Thus, GPLv3's requirement about installation
information is stronger.

Jon
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFmpeg Hall of Shame

Gonzalo Garramuño-2
In reply to this post by Thirumalaisamy K


El 29/11/17 a las 10:47, Thirumalaisamy K escribió:
> I know the difference between GPL and LGPL. But, in both you have to
> disclose the sources including controlling scripts.
This is not correct.  LGPL does not require you to disclose any sources,
but it limits you to use only LGPL/MIT/BSD codecs.

--
Gonzalo Garramuño

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFmpeg Hall of Shame

Carl Eugen Hoyos-2
2017-11-29 15:21 GMT+01:00 Gonzalo Garramuño <[hidden email]>:
>
> El 29/11/17 a las 10:47, Thirumalaisamy K escribió:
>>
>> I know the difference between GPL and LGPL. But, in both you
>> have to disclose the sources including controlling scripts.
>
> This is not correct.  LGPL does not require you to disclose any
> sources, but it limits you to use only LGPL/MIT/BSD codecs.

This is most likely not correct but note that the distributor
in question only offers GPL'd binaries.

Carl Eugen
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFmpeg Hall of Shame

Reindl Harald
In reply to this post by drwho


Am 29.11.2017 um 15:06 schrieb drwho:

> On 2017-11-29 08:58 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 29.11.2017 um 14:47 schrieb Thirumalaisamy K:
>>> I know the difference between GPL and LGPL. But, in both you have to
>>> disclose the sources including controlling scripts.
>>>
>>> Just clear question whether it's required to release the control scripts
>>> when one release a binary made from LGPL code?
>>
>> please quote me the part of GPL which says i need to provide a bash
>> script which *calls* configure, set some params, install
>> build-requires and *not links* and line of code
> I don't think the "script which *calls* configure" is necessary, but
> please be aware....
>
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#InstInfo
>
> GPLv3 explicitly requires redistribution to include the full necessary
> “Installation Information.” GPLv2 doesn't use that term, but it does
> require redistribution to include "scripts used to control compilation
> and installation of the executable" with the complete and corresponding
> source code. This covers part, but not all, of what GPLv3 calls
> “Installation Information.” Thus, GPLv3's requirement about installation
> information is stronger

besides that if you annoy them enough they just stop provide binaries
and say "figure out how to build ffmpeg at your own jerk" the paragraph
below is plain nonsense

and even if they provide you every single line you won't get a identical
binary and "There is no guarantee that the releaser hasn't modified the
sources" sounds like the next step of the OP would be like offend them
with "you have modified the sources because my binary is not identical"
because of his cluelessnes

a reproducable build is much more then fire up a script

https://reproducible-builds.org/
https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/About
___________________________

I agree that I can just dump the config parameters from the binary
itself using -buildconf. But, it doesn't mean that I can just reproduce
the same binary with the script
___________________________

you can't anyways until you use a *identical* build environment
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFmpeg Hall of Shame

Thirumalaisamy K
In reply to this post by drwho
​Here are some contexts from LGPL v2.1



*if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or for a fee, you
must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you. You must make
sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. If you link other
code with the library, you must provide complete object files to the
recipients, so that they can relink them with the library after making
changes to the library and recompiling it. And you must show them these
terms so they know their rights."Source code" for a work means the
preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For a library,
complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains,
plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the library.*


On 29 November 2017 at 19:36, drwho <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I don't think the "script which *calls* configure" is necessary, but
> please be aware....
>
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#InstInfo
>
> GPLv3 explicitly requires redistribution to include the full necessary
> “Installation Information.” GPLv2 doesn't use that term, but it does
> require redistribution to include "scripts used to control compilation and
> installation of the executable" with the complete and corresponding source
> code. This covers part, but not all, of what GPLv3 calls “Installation
> Information.” Thus, GPLv3's requirement about installation information is
> stronger.
>
> Jon
>
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
>
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> [hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
>
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFmpeg Hall of Shame

Reindl Harald


Am 29.11.2017 um 15:57 schrieb Thirumalaisamy K:

> ​Here are some contexts from LGPL v2.1
>
> *if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or for a fee, you
> must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you. You must make
> sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. If you link other
> code with the library, you must provide complete object files to the
> recipients, so that they can relink them with the library after making
> changes to the library and recompiling it. And you must show them these
> terms so they know their rights."Source code" for a work means the
> preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For a library,
> complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains,
> plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
> control compilation and installation of the library.*

guess what ./configure is

> On 29 November 2017 at 19:36, drwho <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think the "script which *calls* configure" is necessary, but
>> please be aware....
>>
>> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#InstInfo
>>
>> GPLv3 explicitly requires redistribution to include the full necessary
>> “Installation Information.” GPLv2 doesn't use that term, but it does
>> require redistribution to include "scripts used to control compilation and
>> installation of the executable" with the complete and corresponding source
>> code. This covers part, but not all, of what GPLv3 calls “Installation
>> Information.” Thus, GPLv3's requirement about installation information is
>> stronger

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFmpeg Hall of Shame

Thirumalaisamy K
In reply to this post by Reindl Harald
it's true that it may happen if we hurt too much.​ But, It's not my
intention. There are many build scripts available in github which can grab
the latest sources of the external libs and sources of ffmpeg & compiles
ffmpeg as static binary. I know that some external factors also affect
build process. it won't provide identical builds until or unless there is
identical work environment.

I am aware that it's not necessary that everyone has to accept license
terms. So, we can't force anyone. My intention is that it will be great, if
we can convince the regular binary maintainers to release a buildable codes
rather than pointing to ffmpeg site.


On 29 November 2017 at 20:24, Reindl Harald <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> besides that if you annoy them enough they just stop provide binaries and
> say "figure out how to build ffmpeg at your own jerk" the paragraph below
> is plain nonsense
>
> and even if they provide you every single line you won't get a identical
> binary and "There is no guarantee that the releaser hasn't modified the
> sources" sounds like the next step of the OP would be like offend them with
> "you have modified the sources because my binary is not identical" because
> of his cluelessnes
>
> a reproducable build is much more then fire up a script
>
> https://reproducible-builds.org/
> https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/About
> ___________________________
>
> I agree that I can just dump the config parameters from the binary itself
> using -buildconf. But, it doesn't mean that I can just reproduce the same
> binary with the script
> ___________________________
>
> you can't anyways until you use a *identical* build environment
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFmpeg Hall of Shame

Thirumalaisamy K
In reply to this post by Reindl Harald
If you believe that this is what meant in LGPL v2.1, we can just quite this
discussion here as I have the answer now...:)


On 29 November 2017 at 20:33, Reindl Harald <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> guess what ./configure is
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: FFmpeg Hall of Shame

Reindl Harald


Am 29.11.2017 um 16:08 schrieb Thirumalaisamy K:
> If you believe that this is what meant in LGPL v2.1, we can just quite this
> discussion here as I have the answer now...:)

for such license discussions you need a laywer

and if you consult 3 different laywers you will reieve 4 different
opinions as always - the *intention* of the GPL is that the sources are
free and that you can't fork or use the code in your own product without
also make the sources free

*nothing* of that happens in case somebody provides you a pre-compiled
ffmpeg binary to take the burden of do it at your own from your
shoulders and as said just by sha256sum you can't insinuate that they
modified something

> On 29 November 2017 at 20:33, Reindl Harald <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> guess what ./configure is

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
[hidden email] with subject "unsubscribe".