[FFmpeg-user] More Liberal Licensing

[Carl Zwanzig]

On 11/28/2023 4:09 AM, Phil Rhodes via ffmpeg-user wrote:
> The thing which makes all this a bit difficult is whether it's possible
> (or easy) to prove that a given distributed binary is actually compiled
> from the source code one is offering. I'm not sure that this has ever
> been tested in court - most of the (L)GPL stuff hasn't, much - but it's
> not obvious to how someone could prove that if there were ever a
> dispute.

FWIW, BusyBox has taken on some commercial organizations to court and 
prevailed, search "busybox copyright lawsuit" and you'll get things like

https://softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/08/court-rules-gpl-part-of-a-well-pleaded-case/ 
(summary judgement)
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2537947/open-source-legal-group-strikes-again-on-busybox--suing-verizon.html

So whether or not you agree with the current licensing structure, if you 
want to use ffmpeg components you have to play by those rules.

Later,

z!