Re: faad2 2.5 licensing issues revisited

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: >Hi. > >Looks like we may yet have to revert back to FAAD2 CVS snapshot from >2004-09-15, i.e. before the controversial README change. > >I've been talking to FFmpeg/MPlayer developers and when I pointed them to >http://bugzilla.livna.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1482#c4 , they immediately said >it was GPL incompatible. After re-reading this again I have to agree. That >is to say, we can still distribute it, but we can't distribute GPL binaries >linked against it. At least that's what I think. > >We could build LGPL'd FFmpeg and then it could be linked against faad2-2.5, >but some parts of FFmpeg are GPL and thus would not be compiled. MPlayer >comes with its own faad2 snapshot from before the change. I haven't checked >other apps. > Has anyone tried to contact faad2 upstream about these problems? Maybe they are willing to add an exception that the advertising clause does not need to be followed by derived works which are under the GPL? This is what for example imlib2 does, and according to the FSF imlib2's license is GPL v2 & v3 compatible. (Note actually imlib2 says that no advertising is necessary if a derived work comes with full sourcecode).