[FFmpeg-trac] #5141(undetermined:new): Eltima violates GPL

[FFmpeg]

#5141: Eltima violates GPL
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
             Reporter:  llogan       |                    Owner:
                 Type:  license      |                   Status:  new
  violation                          |                Component:
             Priority:  normal       |  undetermined
              Version:  unspecified  |               Resolution:
             Keywords:               |               Blocked By:
             Blocking:               |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0            |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by Timothy_Gu):

 I am not a lawyer.

 Replying to [comment:1 annabrooks]:

 > As for no source code available. If you mean player source code, then
 according to ​http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#NFUseGPLPlugins
 we don't have to distribute it.

 Is FFmpeg a plugin of Eltima Player? Or is it necessary for Eltima Player
 to function? If it is an essential part of Eltima Player, it cannot be
 considered to be a plugin.

 Regardless, I believe that FFmpeg is an aggregate in this specific case:
 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation, and thus the
 GPL does not apply to Eltima Player.

 However, the GPL ''does'' apply to FFmpeg itself. And that's why you need
 to distribute the '''source code of FFmpeg''' in one of the fashions
 Section 6 of the GPLv3 describes:
 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html#section6, in conjunction with
 the provisions of Section 4 since you said that no modifications were done
 to the FFmpeg source. You will need to check the individual libraries
 incorporated in the FFmpeg build as well for their license.

 For the record, the `elmediaplayer.dmg` I have just downloaded on
 2016-11-14 with SHA-256 hash
 `bc7dd96f0094815c01435eada11e04c78031b0b114c27c3e63fa16f9b79d87ee`
 contains a copy of `ffmpeg` executable with the following configuration:

 {{{
 --prefix=/Volumes/Ramdisk/sw --enable-gpl --enable-pthreads --enable-
 version3 --enable-libspeex --enable-libvpx --disable-decoder=libvpx
 --enable-libmp3lame --enable-libtheora --enable-libvorbis --enable-libx264
 --enable-avfilter --enable-libopencore_amrwb --enable-libopencore_amrnb
 --enable-filters --enable-libgsm --enable-libvidstab --enable-libx265
 --arch=x86_64 --enable-runtime-cpudetect
 }}}

 At least vid.stab, x264, and x265 are distributed under the GPL (be sure
 to check the versions of the GPL also). At least libmp3lame is licensed
 under the LGPL. x265 [https://bitbucket.org/multicoreware/x265/issues/230
 /license-gpl-v2-or-v2 especially ambiguous] in its license version.

 Note that even if Eltima Player is GPL you would still have to make
 available the source code. (That is why websites like
 [http://ffmpeg.zeranoe.com/builds/ Zeranoe] which distribute FFmpeg in
 binary form distribute the corresponding source code as well.)

 > If you mean sources of ffmpeg we think that we don't have to open them
 too as we did not do any modifications of ffmpeg code.  But if  ffmpeg
 community insists, we can place the copy of current snapshot on our
 website.  But we think that there is no need to do this. As guided by this
 (https://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html) we should do this when linking against
 the FFmpeg libraries (we don't do this).

 The legal guide is only that – a guide. The fact that it does not
 ''mention'' distributing as a separate program does not mean that there
 are no conditions for doing so.

 >
 > As for the license copy. We apologize that we did not do it earlier.
 That's our shortcoming and not a deliberate aim to violate the license.
 We'll fix this in the nearest future: we will add the license text to the
 internal package and mention in our EULA that we use FFmpeg under the
 GPLv3.

 Yes please. See Section 4 of GPLv3.

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/5141#comment:2>
FFmpeg <https://ffmpeg.org>
FFmpeg issue tracker