3 ms·
If there is any LGPL code in that library, then it can be separated into a secondary library. And the licensing issue could get resolved (in new versions). It
by simosx 12y ago
If there is any LGPL code in that library, then it can be separated into a secondary library. And the licensing issue could get resolved (in new versions).
It would be great if the code of that library (hardware acceleration for audio/video decoding/encoding) was released with an open license. I hope it happens.
What is sad, is that the OP in the Google Group thread is using the "bitch about it hard and loud" strategy. Trying to be negative and so on. It's not a constructive attitude.
- yellowapple 12y agoWhile I agree that it would be ideal if being nice and diplomatic will fix things, I'm personally a bit of a pessimist, and am with Luc on this. Working with companies like this is often like working with young children. Usually, calmly saying "please don't do that" doesn't work (and, indeed, doesn't appear to be working with Allwinner after 4 years of pointing out GPL violations); you have to make it plain and clear that what the child / company is doing is bad behavior, and that it's making you or someone else upset. I'd be more inclined to take your side on this and criticize Luc if Allwinner actually had a good track record of responding immediately and adequately to such (L)GPL violations. From what I can tell, however, neither have been the case, and I therefore completely understand (and even agree with) Luc's visible hostility.