Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 28th Oct 2011 20:42 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Thread beginning with comment 494849
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: rather, they released an open source implementation
by _txf_ on Sat 29th Oct 2011 15:32
in reply to "RE: rather, they released an open source implementation"
It's a good thing there is an FFmpeg decoder/encoder as releasing this under the Apache license makes this next to useless since almost everything you'd want to use this with is GPL and the two licenses are incompatible with each other.
well it is more like apache is incompatible with gpl. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but you can take stuff from apache and put it in gpl software...
RE[2]: rather, they released an open source implementation
by videokilledradiostar on Sun 30th Oct 2011 21:10
in reply to "RE: rather, they released an open source implementation"
It's a good thing there is an FFmpeg decoder/encoder as releasing this under the Apache license makes this next to useless since almost everything you'd want to use this with is GPL and the two licenses are incompatible with each other.
The Apache License is compatible with the GPL. If you have a GPL application you can include Apache licensed code.
However, if you have an Apache licensed application and include GPL licensed code, you must distribute the derivative work under the GPL.
So really this is the best possible solution, as Apache licensed code can become GPL, or stay Apache licensed, depending on what kind of project you include it in.




Member since:
2007-05-05
It's a good thing there is an FFmpeg decoder/encoder as releasing this under the Apache license makes this next to useless since almost everything you'd want to use this with is GPL and the two licenses are incompatible with each other.