[LAU] ffmpeg or libav

[drew Roberts]

On Sunday 13 January 2013 11:01:54 Rob wrote:
> On 01/13/2013 10:44 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
> >> there would also be no way to require anyone to honor my intentions that
> >> my source code be made available to anyone that my software is
> >> distributed to.
> >
> > This bit is true. But without the corresponding ability to enforce
> > non-distribution of binaries how big of an issue would this be?
>
> To free software advocates, it'd be an enormous issue. The right to
> redistribute is only freedom #2. Freedom #1 is the right to inspect and
> change a program. Many of us could afford to do everything with proprietary
> software, but choose free software because we want control over what's
> running on our hardware whenever practical. (Or, if you're RMS, even if
> it's impractical.) "Free software" and "freeware" are two very different
> things.

You miss the implication of the question of how big an issue it would be. 
Could a proprietary software industry survive at anywhere near current levels 
without copyright?

If you think so, why was the battle to get software covered by copyright so 
hard fought?

Do you not think the malware writers would distribute the binaries despite any 
EULAs agreed to by bona fide users?

Do you think click through EULAs would survive without copyright law?

Etc.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
>
> Of course, the absence of copyright law would not make EULAs go away;
> proprietary software makers would just make you sign a contract (which,
> depending on which legal venue you're in, can sometimes be effected by
> merely opening a box or clicking a link) saying you won't redistribute it
> before they distribute the software to you. Advocates of copyleft could do
> the same thing, though we'd lose a lot of our advantages over proprietary
> software in that case since you couldn't just throw ISOs everywhere.
>
> Rob

all the best,

drew