[Ffmpeg-devel] [Ffmpeg-devel-old] why not have h264 encoder in the libavcodec?

[Måns Rullgård]

Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal.cx> writes:

> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:39:50PM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> writes:
>> 
>> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 02:27:08PM +0100, Maarten Daniels wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> I think quite some people are willing to spend time on improving and 
>> >> testing the H264 encoder if the license is changed to LGPL.
>> >
>> > I have seen some people here claim that the LGPL is the "better" license
>> > and argue in favor of having everything LGPL.
>> 
>> I genuinely believe that the GPL and LGPL are essentially equivalent.
>> But IANAL, so what I believe doesn't matter.
>
> Quite clearly not.. Regardless of whether the legal scope of copyright
> is sufficient to prevent any work that the GPL would consider
> "derived" from being produced outside the terms of the GPL, you are
> ALWAYS infringing on copyright if you distribute any of the GPL'd work
> while not following the terms of the GPL

True so far.

> and its definition of derived work (which may be more inclusive than
> the legal definition).

The GPL explicitly defers definition of "derived work" to copyright
law.  The controversy is over which works are covered by the
definition given in copyright law.

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mru at inprovide.com