On 12/4/18, Carl Eugen Hoyos <[email protected]> wrote: > 2018-12-04 14:32 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi <[email protected]>: >> On 04-12-2018 06:38 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >>> 2018-12-04 13:53 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi <[email protected]>: >>>> On 04-12-2018 06:15 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >>>>> 2018-12-04 12:10 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>>> +@section Chromaprint >>>>>> + >>>>>> +FFmpeg can make use of the Chromaprint library for generating audio >>>>>> fingerprints. >>>>> >>>>>> +It is licensed under LGPL version 2.1. >>>>> >>>>> No other library is described like this. >>>>> Why are you adding legal statements that are unneeded? >>>> >>>> I see licensing notes for libxavs2, libdavs2, "OpenCORE, VisualOn, and >>>> Fraunhofer libraries", x264 & x265. >>>> >>>> Is the situation for chromaprint and GME different than for the libs >>>> above >>> >>> Yes, very much so. >> >> Please explain. > > The license is only mentioned for projects that are not LGPL-compatible, > it is unneeded to mention LGPL-compatibility. > > I start to wonder how good your insurance is...
This is yet another attack from you. How much we need to tolerate this? _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
