Hi On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 07:06:48PM +0200, Uoti Urpala wrote: > 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). all true i guess but in practice iam sure there are people around who are happy to see patches submitted here, i at least prefer it alot if people send nicely split patches compared to some tar.gz source somewhere which is much harder to review and extract possibly usefull changes [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -- Albert Einstein -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20070125/df0a61b6/attachment.pgp>
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