[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] faad2 version 2.5 support, second try
Mon Jan 14 12:46:42 CET 2008
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 12:36:45PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > > > The statement above defines what appropriate is which is an additional
> > > > restriction if the legal meaning of appropriate is "wider" than this.
> > >
> > > Wider than what?
> > wider than the license text of FAAD2
> > assume the law would say that a reference to a README is appropriate copyright
> > statement for used libs then the text of the FAAD2 license is an additional
> > restriction
> We're not talking about your assumptions here. Is there a law thay says that
> or isn't there? AFAIK there isn't, but my knowledge is admittedly limited.
iam not a lawyer but
A. we violate the GPL by not providing copyright statements for all the libs
B. asking for such a explicit statement is an additional restriction
again IANAL thats just MHO
> > > > Also an appropriate copyright statement for ffmpeg is certainly not
> > > > "Code from FAAD2 is copyright (c) Nero AG, www.nero.com", that might be
> > > > part of it but its not alone on its own appropriate
> > >
> > > Why do you say it is not appropriate? What would you consider appropriate?
> > currently ffmpeg prints
> > FFmpeg version SVN-r11520, Copyright (c) 2000-2008 Fabrice Bellard, et al.
> > following would not be appropriate:
> > FFmpeg version SVN-r11520, Code from FAAD2 is copyright (c) Nero AG, www.nero.com
> > but that is what the license requires if taken litterally IMHO/IANAL
> Not in my opinion. IIUC all they want is to be credited as Nero AG, wherever the GPL
> says you must put those credits.
that would be fine i guess
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know
nothing. -- Socrates
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel