[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] LICENSE: remove incorrect statements that leaked in from libav

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:34:17PM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:15:09PM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 07:07:04PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > This is based on the ubuntu technical committee understanding of
> > > the libfaac license:
> > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2011-February/000703.html
> > > 
> > > That is
> > > 1. libfaac is not LGPL itself as a whole
> > > 2. libfaac is not GPL compatible (additional restrictions violate GPL)
> > > 3. libfaac is distributable (ubuntu distributes it)
> > > 4. libfaac contains LGPL code itself (stated in libfaac README and other places)
> > > from above axioms one can conclude libfaac must be linkable with LGPL code
> > > because where it not, it itself could not be distributed
> > 
> > 4) could be based on assuming that libfaac authors would automatically
> > give you rights beyond what the LGPL does, thus allowing it to be
> > combined with non-LGPL compatible code.
> > As to the incompatibility there is in section 6 of LGPL v2.1:
> > > provided that the terms permit
> > > modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse
> > > engineering for debugging such modifications.
> > 
> > The libfaac license under discussion does _not_ permit you to make
> > modifications, since any modification that would make the code not
> > standards-compatible would mean that you loose your license to it.
> > That is ignoring the fact that if you are pedantic since no software,
> > and certainly also libfaac, is bug free the code probably never was
> > standards compliant and thus nobody ever had a license to distribute
> > it ever, even stand-alone.
> 
> I know that the disclaimer rather belongs on top, but I should say
> that's of course my (pedantic) reading of it, and lawyers and courts
> may have different opinions.
> If you mind the description, personally I would go for "we think it is
> possible it might be unredistributable, but we don't know. It is up to
> you to either not redistribute the result, consult a lawyer or just take
> the risk (Ubuntu seems to have chosen the last one <link>)"

can you elaborate on the problem you see in my suggested change of the
text ? (iam asking so i can suggest a better text)

IMHO your text sounds a bit odd, fearfull and uncertain so i prefer if
it could be worded differently.

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

No great genius has ever existed without some touch of madness. -- Aristotle
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20120814/c541eb5b/attachment.asc>