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

[Michael Niedermayer]

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


> 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 ?

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living from the
dead. -- 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-cvslog/attachments/20120528/34b46def/attachment.asc>