• Sparrow@techhub.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    28 days ago

    @CannonFodder @Neptr You were bundling LGPL source into your project. Their request was right, you were violating their license; if you had just used upstream FFmpeg by requiring systems to install it from the package i.e .deb dependency or downloading it directly from their releases and having their binary fully separate, you wouldn’t have had any pushback.

    • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      28 days ago

      It was an embedded system. The user wouldn’t be able to download and install stuff, they just turn the thing on. The ffmpeg libraries were provided as is as separate files in the system.
      If that’s their policy, ok. But it means we can’t use it in embedded systems.

      • Sparrow@techhub.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        28 days ago

        @CannonFodder Policy? It’s the legal license you agreed to when you copied their code. It’s not like they rug pulled you; it’s open, and you should have read it before you even started. If you are commercial, look into FOSSA; you need an SCA for license compliance. Your way around this for LGPL was to make a fork and then compile the fork and use those compiled libraries if you needed airgapped. The moment anything touches that code, like if you static link all code that is touching it now needs to now be public too. If you dynamically link as long as the full code for that file is open you’re covered.

        I’m actually baffled you didn’t even bother reading their license for a commercial product and chalked it up to they have some policy.