> On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 13:24 +1030, Yuri Vilmanis wrote: > > As stated, the intention of the previously submitted patch is not > > to have it adopted added to ffmpeg svn, it is merely there to > > satisfy > > the license agreement (distrubuting the source code of a modified > > version). > > Sending a patch on this list is neither necessary nor sufficient to > satisfy the requirements of the LGPL. You need to either distribute > binaries and sources together or provide an offer to distribute > sources > on request to people to whom you distribute binaries. Sending sources > here is not sufficient; you need to distribute to those people to > whom > you distribute binaries (expecting them to find it on the list, and > depending on list archives to keep it available without explicit > agreement, is not sufficient). Nor is it necessary because you > haven't > sent binaries to this list. You also need to distribute the whole > sources, just a patch isn't enough (though not many will care in > practice as long as FFmpeg sources remain easily available > elsewhere). > Wow, looks like there is a rebate on trolls today ! This is not the place for *GPL trolls either. Fran?ois.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4