Menu

Xuggler GPL or LGPL?

Anonymous
2013-03-15
2014-07-08
  • Anonymous

    Anonymous - 2013-03-15

    When pulling Xuggler from Maven repository, which license does it fall on? From the license page it looks like the only difference is x264 support. So if I use OpenIMAJ, can it process h.264 videos? If it's not LGPL(can process h.264 video), then OpenIMAJ can't be BSD license, right?

    Anthony

     
  • Jonathon Hare

    Jonathon Hare - 2013-03-15

    Hmm, I hadn't noticed that the xuggler licensing had changed subtly between 3.x and 5.x. We obviously intend to only link against the lgpl version in OpenIMAJ, which means you wouldn't be able to process h.264. However, you as an end-user could make an app using OpenIMAJ together with the GPL xuggler (in order to process h.264), but you would have to release your application under the GPL.

     
  • Anonymous

    Anonymous - 2013-03-15

    I think the point here is for OpenIMAJ, it can't simply have xuggler dependency as defined in xuggle-video/pom.xml, it can pull the jar built by xuggle which is not LGPL, thus making OpenIMAJ unable to use BSD license.

    Since OpenIMAJ has it's own maven repository, would it be possible for OpenIMAJ to build LGPL version of xuggler and create different artifact ID, e.g. xuggler-lgpl?, so when I use maven to pull OpenIMAJ jar files, it can also safely pull xuggler which is LGPL?

    Thanks,

    Anthony

     
  • Jonathon Hare

    Jonathon Hare - 2013-03-15

    Yes, that would be the ideal solution. We'll have to figure out how to build the binaries for all the platforms... I've made a JIRA issue for this: http://jira.openimaj.org/browse/OP-51

     
  • Jonathon Hare

    Jonathon Hare - 2014-06-04

    FYI this is now fixed. h264 can still be read, but not written with the lgpl version

     

Anonymous
Anonymous

Add attachments
Cancel





Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.