3 ms·
GP was saying that statically linking would have been a violation. That is what GGP was trying to do, they fell back on running an executable because they didn'
by remram 3y ago
GP was saying that statically linking would have been a violation. That is what GGP was trying to do, they fell back on running an executable because they didn't manage it. They're asking how to do it, but that wouldn't be legal (unless you offer a way for people to re-static-link with a modified version of ffmpeg, which is not easy if you don't want to publish your sources).
Even distributing the standalone ffmpeg executable might be a violation, if there have been changes to the ffmpeg code and it's closed source.
- throwaway290 3y agoIf there have been changes to ffmpeg code, then all that's needed is making it possible for the user to obtain the changed ffmpeg code. Voila. There's way too much FUD.
- remram 3y agoI said "might" and "if"... where's the F, U, or D? If the source is published then that avenue is fine.
- throwaway290 3y agoYeah, I was wrong and per part 1 of https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynami... this ios developer actually needs to provide the source for that app if they statically link. Otherwise it is an LGPL violation