<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">El 23/02/16 a las 19:37, Mohamed Moanis
escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:DBXPR07MB23805A5C7F6BFFB5B4B479BF3A40@DBXPR07MB238.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p dir="ltr">Hi all,</p>
<p dir="ltr">I have a question about the license of using ffmpeg
libraries in a commercial application, does it imply that the
application be open source or free?!</p>
<p dir="ltr">I am afraid that some companies could be using ffmpeg
for commercial applications and making profit, while the
developers behind it take zero credits or at least don't get
paid for their work.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Note: I am not a lawyer, so take it with a grain of salt.<br>
<br>
You can use LGPL ffmpeg in a commercial (closed source) application
as long as you comply with the LGPL license (you provide it with
your software mainly and allow users to dynamically link another
version of the library) and compile ffmpeg in LGPL mode (without
enable-gpl and others).<br>
Developers get paid if you need a custom version of the library
compiled (see zeranoe for example).<br>
Besides the LGPL you need to consider patents and licensing. For
example, h264, IIRC, pays its patent dues to the Academy of Motion
Picture but only after some 100,000 copies of your software are
sold.<br>
Companies that use FFMPEG in an illegal way are scratched in the
ffmpeg web page of shame.<br>
<br>
As usual, for all legal matters, consult a lawyer.<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Gonzalo Garramuño
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ggarra13@gmail.com">ggarra13@gmail.com</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>