[FFmpeg-user] Report non Compliance with License

[Carl Eugen Hoyos]

2017-01-30 5:02 GMT+01:00 Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net>:
>
> Am 29.01.2017 um 22:54 schrieb Carl Eugen Hoyos:
>>
>> 2017-01-29 21:02 GMT+01:00 Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net>:
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 29.01.2017 um 20:53 schrieb Phil Rhodes:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Make sure the source code corresponds exactly to the library
>>>>> binaries you are distributing.
>>>>
>>>> How is this to be proven?
>>>
>>> it's impossible to prove it
>>
>> This is not generally correct:
>> The Debian builds are - for example - binary-reproducible.
>
> but these are no debian builds

(How do you know?)

> and without repeatable builds you can't prove it

But we save the compiler version in the binary...

> nor proves a binary with a different hash build
> from the sources that these where not used for the
> shipped binary

True but not really related.

> without the 100% exactly build environment including all
> versions of involved software and libraries you can't prove it

But this is - contrary to what you wrote above - not impossible
- at least not generally.

>>> but it's possible to prove the opposite in some cases
>>
>> It's usually easy: As reported, Todd, Michael & James, Inc. and Video
>> Surgeon are violating the copyrights of the FFmpeg developers
>
> as said: in some cases, in a closed appliance you would even have a
> problem to prove that ffmpeg exists there at all

This has never been an issue so far.

Carl Eugen