[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Linphone-developers] G729 support in mediastremer2

From: Sergei Steshenko
Subject: Re: [Linphone-developers] G729 support in mediastremer2
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 18:43:51 -0700 (PDT)

--- On Sun, 8/1/10, Mike Frysinger <address@hidden> wrote:

> From: Mike Frysinger <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [Linphone-developers] G729 support in mediastremer2
> To: "Sergei Steshenko" <address@hidden>
> Cc: "kl" <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> Date: Sunday, August 1, 2010, 5:07 PM
> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 03:15, Sergei
> Steshenko wrote:
> > So, the "License: nonfree and unredistributable" note
> is absolutely correct, and I am _not_ distributing built by
> myself 'ffmpeg'.
> and which is completely irrelevant to this
> discussion.  customers will
> not accept a source tree and told "you need to compile this
> yourself"
> just to avoid GPL issues.  and giving them binaries
> isnt possible
> because it would violate the GPL.  which is why it'd
> really only
> "work" with large (like Tier 1) customers would dont care
> about the
> GPL and would simply ignore the violations.
> -mike

It is relevant. For example, I am building 'ffmpeg' using a tool I wrote,
and the tool is open source.

So, if a compilation tool is distributed with a product, and the product
has a "Get G729 plugin" button whose callback calls such a compilation script, 
why would customer care ? (patent issues aside, I'm just talking
about linking on customer premises GPL and non-GPL software).

I am not compiling ATI drivers manually, I just pick an RPM from SUSE
yast2 tool, and the RPM with included into it compilation script does
the necessary compilation and installation work.

So for me ATI drivers installation looks the same as any other RPM


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]