[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.

Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list