[Ffmpeg-devel-old] Re: [Ffmpeg-devel] License violation?
Mon Apr 25 00:59:31 CEST 2005
On Tuesday 29 March 2005 12:32, Aurelien Jacobs wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:59:10 +0200 (EET)
> Matti Hamalainen <mhamalai at ratol.fi> wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 08:48:55PM -0800, Ryan Altinson wrote:
> > >> Next, I found what might be a violation of the LGPL in
> > >> a program called MemoriesOnTV. I found the libfilefmt
> > >> DLL today when searching my drive for cygwin libraries
> > >> and it contains ffmpeg. I looked for a copy of the
> > >> LGPL, but couldn't find one anywhere in the
> > >> installation.
> > >>
> > >> Also, aren't there GPL'd components in
> > >> ffmpeg that would make this a big violation?
> > >
> > > It depends on how you compile it, by default: no.
> > The interesting file seems to be the already mentioned
> > "libfilefmt-1.0.0.dll". It seems to contain (among others) libpng,
> > libijpeg, etc. linked into it. I extracted the DLL in question
> > by installing MemoriesOnTV via Wine, it is available for the time
> > being at (2.6MB in size):
> > http://www.ratol.fi/~mhamalai/libfilefmt-1.0.0.dll
> > ...
> > Running "strings libfilefmt-1.0.0.dll" reveals some messages
> > that are strikingly similar to ones in ffmpeg and libavcodec.. ;)
> > "ffmpeg_audio_close"
> > "ffmpeg_video_create"
> > "warning: first frame is no keyframe"
> > "releasing zombie picture"
> > "warning, too many bframes in a row"
> BTW libfilefmt-1.0.0.dll is not the only file containing the ffmpeg
> string. libmcl-3.0.1b3.dll is upxed, but if you un-upx it
> (upx -d libmcl-3.0.1b3.dll) you can then find similar ffmpeg strings
> in it :
> libmcl is distributed by http://www.gromada.com/ and the mcl archive
> also contain libfilefmt. The readme file clearly state that :
> "MCL is based in part on the work of the following people (...)
> Fabrice Bellard and many others: FFmpeg (http://ffmpeg.sourceforge.net)"
> But I can't see any reference to the LGPL in their license file nor
> anywhere else.
> So that seems to be a blatant LGPL violation.
did someone contact them and ask them to comply with the LGPL? (reference to
LGPL, source of the ffmpeg parts they use, object files for relinking, ...)
"nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so." -- Elrond
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
Ffmpeg-devel mailing list
Ffmpeg-devel at lists.sourceforge.net
More information about the ffmpeg-devel