Ah, the classic ad hominem, the mark of someone who has absolutely no problem backing up their bold claims with arguments, not just feelings! I wouldn’t touch your products even if I got paid to do so, given your attitude in this thread alone.

But we can’t all live in mom and dad’s basement pretending we know what we’re talking about, can we?

That’s rich coming from someone who is confidently incorrect about how basic software licensing works…

Couldn’t you rather provide the name of your company, so we know what software we should steer clear of?

So it was inconvenient for you, and that is somehow the FFmpeg squelching innovation? Grow up.

I only commented on you saying that switching to dynamic linking should be enough, which would not matter as long as you didn’t also make it possible for the user to relink a modified library if they wanted. That would be hard given your own description of users not being able to download or install anything on said system.

Talk about blame shifting. FFmpeg didn’t kill the project. Your own negligence did.

It was an embedded system. The user wouldn’t be able to download and install stuff, they just turn the thing on. The ffmpeg libraries were provided as is as separate files in the system.

The LGPL (v2.1 and later which is relevant for FFmpeg) is very clear that when linking libraries, the recipient (user) must be able to relink after making changes to the library and recompiling it. How do you figure that this part of the license is compatible with an embedded system where the user would have no access to the software side, rendering the user unable to do said relinking? As long as the user would not be able to use a modified version of FFmpeg with your system, you are automatically not in compliance with the license. Your system couldn’t use any LGPL-licensed software, not restricted to FFmpeg, so this is completely on you.

We switched to dynamic libraries, but they still wouldn’t let it go. It seemed a distinction without a difference, but we did it as we thought it would put us in the clear. And yes it should have

No, it shouldn’t, and you would know that if you looked into the LGPL license.

Ffmpeg are kinda assholes and squelch innovation tbh.

In this case it was your own greed. When you decide you have to alter your product to be able to make a profit because you’re not allowed to ghoul on others’ free work, you can’t blame those who provide the software free of charge. They have absolutely no obligation to let you make a profit by not honoring the license of their own work.

Your reasoning is basically the same as the entire rotten-to-the-core AI industry: “if we need to honor the licenses of the works we use, we would never be able to make money!” Boo fuckin’ hoo.

Also, the irony of you claiming FFmpeg squelches innovation by making you honor the license, for a product where you would like to lock the user out from being able to make modifications is just… top notch. Innovation is only good when it suits your needs, apparently, not the end user.