The decoder is Apache 2.0 licensed. For most applications (e.g. websites, apps, games), you only need the decoder.
There is still a lot of room for improvement in the encoder, which is why (at least for now) it has the LGPL license, to ensure that improvements can be integrated in the reference implementation.
The LGPL reference implementation is what has scared off me and many others I know who had an interest in this work. In many corporate environments LGPL is untouchable.
I really don't understand WHY though; aside from paranoia.
The entire point of LGPL is supposed to be that your corporation provides a binary blob which can be linked against any other such binary blob that supports the requested interface. In this manor someone can use any modified (usually security updates) version of the LGPL library with the rest of your work.
I guess if you require obfuscation or signing of your company's blob things are more difficult. However in that case why aren't you using a security model that signs the code you own and segments out the code you do not?
Comments
When trying to promote an open format, LGPLv3 and such reference implementations aren't exactly helping.
You'd want to maximize adoption, and there BSD can help. Adoption of Xiph.org's Vorbis was in good part supported by such a decision.
The decoder is Apache 2.0 licensed. For most applications (e.g. websites, apps, games), you only need the decoder.
There is still a lot of room for improvement in the encoder, which is why (at least for now) it has the LGPL license, to ensure that improvements can be integrated in the reference implementation.
The LGPL reference implementation is what has scared off me and many others I know who had an interest in this work. In many corporate environments LGPL is untouchable.
I really don't understand WHY though; aside from paranoia.
The entire point of LGPL is supposed to be that your corporation provides a binary blob which can be linked against any other such binary blob that supports the requested interface. In this manor someone can use any modified (usually security updates) version of the LGPL library with the rest of your work.
I guess if you require obfuscation or signing of your company's blob things are more difficult. However in that case why aren't you using a security model that signs the code you own and segments out the code you do not?