Hacker News Reader

Comment by graderjs | Hacker News Reader

Will this make it possible to link in standalone libraries as like a single bundle easily and distribute that without having to worry about local installations?

E.g., I tried to bundle ffmpeg as a library with my voice memo transcription MacOS app^0, but it was too difficult, so I just went with building a standalone ffmpeg binary (~40MB), and instrumenting it with a bash script that I called from the Objective-C code, ha ha ha! :)

0: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/wisprnote/id1671480366?mt=12

View on HN

Just a side note, what you're doing sounds like a violation of the FFmpeg license. https://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html

What exactly are they violating? Isn't running a binary with a bash script ok?

Just based on what the comment says, they're distributing a compiled FFmpeg, presumably not with source or attribution. I can't check to see if there's information in the app but there's no mention of it on the store page or anywhere else I can find either.

They could be fine, but going through the checklist FFmpeg provides for legal considerations (not legal advice), they seem to be doing the opposite of all of them.

I haven't checked their specific app ($119.99) but it's common for packages to have OSS attribution and copyright notices as a dialog or something that the user can click on to see. Since they're presumably not modifying ffmpeg, there's also no source that needs to be provided.

For example, my Chrysler car infotainment has an option in the system settings to see all of the copyright notices and OSS info that goes into the system.

> If you’re using AGPL-licensed software like a database engine or my own AGPL-licensed works, and you haven’t made any changes to the source code, all you have to do is provide a link to the upstream source code somewhere, and if users ask for it, direct them there. If you have modified the software, you simply have to publish your modifications. The easiest way to do this is to send it as a patch upstream, but you could use something as simple as providing a tarball to your users.

(AGPL is generally stricter than LGPL)

https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html

GP was saying that statically linking would have been a violation. That is what GGP was trying to do, they fell back on running an executable because they didn't manage it. They're asking how to do it, but that wouldn't be legal (unless you offer a way for people to re-static-link with a modified version of ffmpeg, which is not easy if you don't want to publish your sources).

Even distributing the standalone ffmpeg executable might be a violation, if there have been changes to the ffmpeg code and it's closed source.

If there have been changes to ffmpeg code, then all that's needed is making it possible for the user to obtain the changed ffmpeg code. Voila. There's way too much FUD.

I said "might" and "if"... where's the F, U, or D? If the source is published then that avenue is fine.

Yeah, I was wrong and per part 1 of https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynami... this ios developer actually needs to provide the source for that app if they statically link. Otherwise it is an LGPL violation

Ha ha ha! :) Thanks for the side note, do you have any answer to the actual question? Ha ha ha! :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com