[FFmpeg-devel] Support master branch of OpenJPEG and Grok J2K codecs

[Aaron Boxer]

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Reimar Döffinger <Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de>
wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 10:51:23AM -0700, Timothy Gu wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 03, 2016 at 05:34:15PM -0400, Aaron Boxer wrote:
> > Also it should be made clear that if Grok is linked into FFmpeg, the
> resulting
> > binary is a mixture of AGPL and GPL works. If --enable-gpl or
> > --enable-version3 is not enabled, the compilation should fail.
> >
> > If there isn't a way to detect Grok from OpenJPEG, there should be one.
> >
> > If it is not clear to you why we are so against AGPL, it is because it
> incurs
> > additional restrictions on the work that we don't consider to be in the
> spirit
> > of free software, regardless of what FSF says. But I think you already
> know
> > about that.
>
> The really huge, gigantic, elephant sized issue with AGPL for me is
> that it is _completely_ unclear to me what you actually have to
> do to fulfill the license requirements of that "frankenmonster".
>

Read the license, then.


> No restrictions on use makes GPL very simple: if you don't
> redistribute, you don't need to do anything.
> What if you somehow got an OS image that happens to use
> a FFmpeg compiled against AGPL components (without you being
> aware, since you never use or care about the AGPL parts)
> and then use FFmpeg to stream over the net (or even your proprietary
> code), are you suddenly in violation of the license?
>

What if you get a version of FFmeg compiled against GPLv3, without being
aware that this is the case,
and then combine it with a proprietary application ?  Same situation.


If the answer is "yes", I am against such a version of FFmpeg
> working without each _use_ of it requiring a special action
> that confirms users are aware of the license obligations.
>

The same logic applies to GPLv3 distributions of FFmpeg.

Aaron