[FFmpeg-devel] Linking against lame considered non-free?
Mon Aug 16 13:54:24 CEST 2010
Reimar D?ffinger <Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de> writes:
> 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.
We also don't link against the README file...
mans at mansr.com
More information about the ffmpeg-devel