6 ms·

CAREFUL with ffmpeg! Their license is DRACONIAN, and they are nasty about enforcing it. Their legal page even suggests (or should I say, demands) additional p

CAREFUL with ffmpeg! Their license is DRACONIAN, and they are nasty about enforcing it. Their legal page even suggests (or should I say, demands) additional provisions above and beyond what the LGPL asks for (i.e. "There are also a few items that are not really related to LGPL compliance but are good ideas anyway"): https://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html https://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html If they catch you violating their LGPL license, they act very antagonistically to you -- as in, they are completely unwilling to work with you by taking the hard line stance that the only way you can appease them and comply with their license is to release your source code. They even once had a Hall of Shame where they publicly called out offenders: https://www.reddit.com/comments/9e25a/hall_of_shame_a_list_of_projects_or_companies/ https://www.reddit.com/comments/9e25a/hall_of_shame_a_list_o... LGPL means no static linking, so using ffmpeg in your closed source Android/iOS apps is already completely ruled out of the picture. I mean, it's well within their rights to impose whatever license they want on their software, but you shouldn't think that using ffmpeg in any closed source or commercial software is a good idea. EDIT: I think it's worth mentioning that none of this comes from personal experience. :)

voltagex_ 11y ago
Any perceived nastiness might come from years of people earning lots of cash from using ffmpeg and giving nothing back.
- Hydraulix989 11y ago
  That's surprising to me because it's entirely possible to commercialize ffmpeg derivatives using LGPL while still complying with that license. In MediaCoder's case, the nastiness ensued because the author didn't distribute the source code with the ffmpeg binaries that he included with his software. LGPL v3 even relaxes that particular clause at issue by adding: "If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place satisfies the requirement to distribute the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code." Meanwhile, the ffmpeg authors bull-headedly refused to mention to the MC developer what term he was violating, and other ffmpeg mailing list users were equally as puzzled as the MC developer. I might add that the MC developer submitted patches with contributions to ffmpeg, all of which were refused without cause by the ffmpeg team. This kind of treatment seems pretty tight-wad, wouldn't you say so?
  - voltagex_ 11y ago
    I didn't know about MediaCoder, I was talking about the wall of shame in general. I won't try to speak for the developers themselves. I'd be interested to know if any patches have been rejected without comment recently.
    - meanduck 11y ago
      MediaCoder Drama : https://web.archive.org/web/20120305052859/https://roundup.libav.org/issue1162 https://web.archive.org/web/20120305052859/https://roundup.l... Notice how ffmpeg devs keep bringing money on discussion. Avoid GPL like a cancer I say.
lmm 11y ago
> Their license is DRACONIAN, and they are nasty about enforcing it. The license is not draconian in the usual sense of the word. The requirements of the LGPL are modest (frankly they require you to grant end users just about the minimum rights that users should always get for any library that was used in a program, IMO), and the license is well known and well understood. > Their legal page even suggests (or should I say, demands) additional provisions above and beyond what the LGPL asks for (i.e. "There are also a few items that are not really related to LGPL compliance but are good ideas anyway"): They explicitly say "It is not the only way to comply with the license, but we think it is the easiest." > If they catch you violating their LGPL license, they act very antagonistically to you -- as in, they are completely unwilling to work with you by taking the hard line stance that the only way you can appease them and comply with their license is to release your source code. > They even once had a Hall of Shame where they publicly called out offenders: https://www.reddit.com/comments/9e25a/hall_of_shame_a_list_o.. https://www.reddit.com/comments/9e25a/hall_of_shame_a_list_o.... You're talking about using stuff in closed source or commercial software? Do you imagine a commercial company who you licensed a library from and then proceeded to violate that license would be friendlier than that? Never mind hall of shame, you'll be looking at demands for thousands of dollars. They could be nicer about it but if they believe closed source software is inherently harmful to its users I can understand their position, and it's not their job to give you free legal advice. > LGPL means no static linking, so using ffmpeg in your closed source Android/iOS apps is already completely ruled out of the picture. I've used android apps that use it by allowing you to place the ffmpeg DLL in their folder. It's more work (which is a problem with Android that should be improved on) but it's the only way I can see to make sure that end users don't get stuck with an old version. For exceedingly complex C code like video codecs, security flaws are basically guaranteed (and sadly for the moment C seems to be regarded necessary for performance - I've seen some OCaml/Haskell video codecs but nothing like the wide format support of ffmpeg), and video players are often used on untrusted files from the internet. So if you were ever to stop developing your app - or even if the play store refused updates for whatever means - it's absolutely vital to your end users' security that they be able to upgrade the version of ffmpeg that the app uses, and this kind of license is the only way to enforce that.
- richardwhiuk 11y ago

voltagex_ 11y ago

Any perceived nastiness might come from years of people earning lots of cash from using ffmpeg and giving nothing back.

Hydraulix989 11y ago
That's surprising to me because it's entirely possible to commercialize ffmpeg derivatives using LGPL while still complying with that license. In MediaCoder's case, the nastiness ensued because the author didn't distribute the source code with the ffmpeg binaries that he included with his software. LGPL v3 even relaxes that particular clause at issue by adding: "If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place satisfies the requirement to distribute the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code." Meanwhile, the ffmpeg authors bull-headedly refused to mention to the MC developer what term he was violating, and other ffmpeg mailing list users were equally as puzzled as the MC developer. I might add that the MC developer submitted patches with contributions to ffmpeg, all of which were refused without cause by the ffmpeg team. This kind of treatment seems pretty tight-wad, wouldn't you say so?
- voltagex_ 11y ago
  I didn't know about MediaCoder, I was talking about the wall of shame in general. I won't try to speak for the developers themselves. I'd be interested to know if any patches have been rejected without comment recently.
  - meanduck 11y ago
    MediaCoder Drama : https://web.archive.org/web/20120305052859/https://roundup.libav.org/issue1162 https://web.archive.org/web/20120305052859/https://roundup.l... Notice how ffmpeg devs keep bringing money on discussion. Avoid GPL like a cancer I say.

lmm 11y ago

> Their license is DRACONIAN, and they are nasty about enforcing it. The license is not draconian in the usual sense of the word. The requirements of the LGPL are modest (frankly they require you to grant end users just about the minimum rights that users should always get for any library that was used in a program, IMO), and the license is well known and well understood. > Their legal page even suggests (or should I say, demands) additional provisions above and beyond what the LGPL asks for (i.e. "There are also a few items that are not really related to LGPL compliance but are good ideas anyway"): They explicitly say "It is not the only way to comply with the license, but we think it is the easiest." > If they catch you violating their LGPL license, they act very antagonistically to you -- as in, they are completely unwilling to work with you by taking the hard line stance that the only way you can appease them and comply with their license is to release your source code. > They even once had a Hall of Shame where they publicly called out offenders: https://www.reddit.com/comments/9e25a/hall_of_shame_a_list_o.. https://www.reddit.com/comments/9e25a/hall_of_shame_a_list_o.... You're talking about using stuff in closed source or commercial software? Do you imagine a commercial company who you licensed a library from and then proceeded to violate that license would be friendlier than that? Never mind hall of shame, you'll be looking at demands for thousands of dollars. They could be nicer about it but if they believe closed source software is inherently harmful to its users I can understand their position, and it's not their job to give you free legal advice. > LGPL means no static linking, so using ffmpeg in your closed source Android/iOS apps is already completely ruled out of the picture. I've used android apps that use it by allowing you to place the ffmpeg DLL in their folder. It's more work (which is a problem with Android that should be improved on) but it's the only way I can see to make sure that end users don't get stuck with an old version. For exceedingly complex C code like video codecs, security flaws are basically guaranteed (and sadly for the moment C seems to be regarded necessary for performance - I've seen some OCaml/Haskell video codecs but nothing like the wide format support of ffmpeg), and video players are often used on untrusted files from the internet. So if you were ever to stop developing your app - or even if the play store refused updates for whatever means - it's absolutely vital to your end users' security that they be able to upgrade the version of ffmpeg that the app uses, and this kind of license is the only way to enforce that.

richardwhiuk 11y ago