[FFmpeg-cvslog] configure: openssl is compatible with the LGPL.

[Reimar Döffinger]

On 28 May 2012, at 21:22, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:

> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 08:38:40PM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
>> On 28 May 2012, at 15:50, git at videolan.org (Michael Niedermayer) wrote:
>>> ffmpeg | branch: master | Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> | Mon May 28 15:36:35 2012 +0200| [f997ac1c8bc2124c4c6bf33ad17bc6f6cca0f84e] | committer: Michael Niedermayer
>>> 
>>> configure: openssl is compatible with the LGPL.
>>> 
>>> looking at the license i cannot see why they would be incompatible and
>>> researching this matter a bit also turned up no reasons.
>>> 
>>> If i missed something, please dont hesitate to flame me and or revert
>> 
>> I believe that you at least missed that statically linked ffmpeg, ffprobe etc. do not follow the openssl requirement of printing those messages and are thus at least not redistributable.
> 
> Can you please elaborate on the problem you see ?
> The way i understand the license compared to the modified BSD license
> is it adds a requirement on the content of
> advertisements mentioning features or use of openssl. I would have
> thought that the mere act of distributing a statically linked
> ffmpeg+openssl would not constitute such a advertisement. Thus it
> would not affect the redistributability of such a binary if someone
> choose to create one

Well, I thought about clause 6, though I am not sure what they mean by "retaining the acknowledgment". Compared to the previous and BSD clauses it doesn't restrict itself to the documentation though.

>> Even if that was not the case, it is at the very least confusing when --enable-gpl gives neither a sub- nor superset of the features without.
> 
> The license (in)compatibilities are an unfortunate mess. Do you see
> a better solution ?

I would have said just always go with gnutls, but that is v3 only now.