[FFmpeg-devel] GPL version matter
Sun Jul 1 21:03:12 CEST 2007
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 09:26:00PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 19:43 +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 08:08:06PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > > Bullshit. The FSF is well aware that it's impossible in practice to
> > > write a program without violating a patent, and all programs are
> > > strictly speaking illegal in jurisdictions that allow software patents.
> > > The GPL is not meant to exclude programs covered by patents.
> > it is, and the FSF is claiming that even the (L)GPL2 is fundamentally
> > incompatible with patents, to quote carlo piana (FSF europe lawyer)
> > though he wrote the text below as lawyer of some company and not the
> > FSF
> Your original claim and what M?ns wrote were about software patents
> owned by someone else. Your quote looks like it's in the context of
> keeping _your own_ software patents applicable while distributing the
> software under L(GPL).
no its about a company who wanted to use ffmpeg, and asked the FSF, who told
them that signing the MPEG-LA license is a violation of the LGPL
AFAIK they dont own any patents on h.264 which is the part they wanted
to use from ffmpeg
anyway, you only have to ask the fsf, if its ok or not to use the (L)GPL
for code covered by a patent to which you obtained a license though you
do not own any patent on it
that should clear up any doubt about the FSFs interpretation of the LGPL
at least we seem to agree that there is nothing in the *GPL2 which would
support such a interpretation ...
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in
ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners. -- Vladimir Lenin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ffmpeg-devel