[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] LICENSE: Complete GPL'd external libraries list

[Timothy Gu]

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <cehoyos at ag.or.at> wrote:
> Timothy Gu <timothygu99 <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> +    - libfreetype
>
> My interpretation would have been that we should
> just add a warning that commercial users of
> (LGPL'd) FFmpeg have to be careful to fulfill
> the advertising clause of libfreetype but I
> absolutely may misunderstand.

It is LGPL v3-compatible:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/freetype/2010-11/msg00013.html

The first paragraph of FTL is the same as clause 3 of the 3-clause BSD
license, and the second paragraph said "suggest, but do not require",
so it doesn't really matter.

I don't think providing a warning is necessary because we don't do
that with 3-clause BSD, and the advertisement clause is basically the
same as BSD, with the 2nd paragraph that doesn't matter.

>> +    - librtmp
>
> librtmp is LGPL
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/105953/focus=105964

Oh. I saw that the rtmpdump utility is GPL so I thought the library is GPL too.

>
> Thank you for looking at this, Carl Eugen

I will post a new patch when I have time.

The other thing I am worried about is libquvi, which states that its
version 0.4 is licensed under LGPL, and version 0.9 under AGPL. I
don't know if the ffmpeg's libquvi wrapper is for 0.4 or 0.9, and AGPL
is only compatible with GPL (not LGPL), so I don't know whether to put
it as GPL or LGPL.

For reference, Debian, Ubuntu, Arch, and Fedora are all using the 0.4
branch. And from the date, the push of libquvi.c is before the release
of 0.9.0, which means it **probably** is for 0.4 (LGPL).

Timothy