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

Reimar Döffinger Reimar.Doeffinger
Mon Aug 16 09:26:41 CEST 2010

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 07:43:34PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> 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.

Sorry, but if all files have a straight LGPL header, then all of them
are licensed under LGPL - if they did not have any that would be different.
"Hiding" additional license restrictions in one single file while indicating
a different one everywhere else almost certainly wouldn't hold up in any court.

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list