[FFmpeg-devel] Linking against lame considered non-free?

Reinhard Tartler siretart
Sun Aug 15 19:43:34 CEST 2010


On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 14:30:25 (CEST), Aurelien Jacobs wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 04:24:39PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> 
>> For full context, please see
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.audio.mp3.lame/5092
>> 
>> Short summary, the Lame licsense places additional restrictions on its
>> LGPL license, as seen in
>> http://lame.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/lame/lame/README?view=markup:
>
> I've had a quick look at the source code in libmp3lame, and the few
> files I've had a look at all contained a straight LGPL header without
> any additionnal restriction.
> I'm not an expert, and this would require a deeper look, but to me it
> looks like libmp3lame might be considered strictly LGPL v2+.

If you left out that README file, then I'd agree with you. However, the
README file does contain these restriction, so for lame as a whole, I
think we need to take them into account. Upstream themselves seem to
consider them valid and in place, see the gmane link above.

-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4




More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list