[Ffmpeg-devel] [Ffmpeg-devel-old] why not have h264 encoder in the libavcodec?

Måns Rullgård mru
Wed Nov 9 02:32:37 CET 2005

Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal.cx> writes:

> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:39:50PM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> writes:
>> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 02:27:08PM +0100, Maarten Daniels wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> I think quite some people are willing to spend time on improving and 
>> >> testing the H264 encoder if the license is changed to LGPL.
>> >
>> > I have seen some people here claim that the LGPL is the "better" license
>> > and argue in favor of having everything LGPL.
>> I genuinely believe that the GPL and LGPL are essentially equivalent.
>> But IANAL, so what I believe doesn't matter.
> Quite clearly not.. Regardless of whether the legal scope of copyright
> is sufficient to prevent any work that the GPL would consider
> "derived" from being produced outside the terms of the GPL, you are
> ALWAYS infringing on copyright if you distribute any of the GPL'd work
> while not following the terms of the GPL

True so far.

> and its definition of derived work (which may be more inclusive than
> the legal definition).

The GPL explicitly defers definition of "derived work" to copyright
law.  The controversy is over which works are covered by the
definition given in copyright law.

M?ns Rullg?rd
mru at inprovide.com

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list