<h1>Yes, you can use FFmpeg in a commercial product</h1>
<ul>
<li><p>FFmpeg is licensed under the <strong>GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 or later</strong>.</p>
</li>
<li><p>It is also available under the <strong>General Public License (GPL) version 2 or later</strong>.</p>
<ul>
<li>Some features, external libraries (libx264 and libx265 for example), and various filters, require GPL. If those parts get used the GPL applies to <strong>all</strong> of FFmpeg.</li>
<li>See <code>LICENSE.md</code> in the source for a list of GPL parts of FFmpeg and which external libraries require GPL.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><p>The (L)GPL, and therefore FFmpeg, does not restrict commercial usage. You only need to properly comply with the license.</p>
</li>
<li><p>FFmpeg is not available under any other licensing terms. There is no commercial license available (but see the x264 &amp; x265 commercial license info below). FFmpeg does not accept or charge any fees.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h1>…but the (L)GPL is copyleft</h1>
<p>If you include FFmpeg in your software, under the General Public License (GPL) version 2 or later, <strong>you may be required to make available the source code of your software to anyone requesting it</strong>.</p>
<p>Make sure your software license is compatible with the (L)GPL. This is an important and often confusing aspect of the (L)GPL. I can only suggest that you carefully read the license, the <a href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html" rel="noreferrer">FAQ</a>, and contact a lawyer or your legal department if you need counsel.</p>
<h1>What if I am only using FFmpeg but not distributing it?</h1>
<p>You do not have to do anything if you are not distributing anything from FFmpeg.</p>
<h1>What about the x264 &amp; x265 commercial licenses?</h1>
<p>x264 and x265 are available under the GPL for free or a commercial license that you have to pay for. The commercial licenses are LGPL compatible. FFmpeg does not have an option that disables the GPL requirement for these commercial licenses so you have to do that manually. Therefore, if you purchase a commercial license from <a href="https://licensing.x264.org/" rel="noreferrer">x264 licensing</a> or <a href="https://x265.com/about/license-x265-and-uhdcode-for-your-product-or-service/" rel="noreferrer">x265 licensing</a> then you are permitted to:</p>
<ul>
<li>Compile x264/x265 with <code>--disable-gpl</code>.</li>
<li>Modify the <code>configure</code> file in the FFmpeg source code to move libx264/libx265 from <code>EXTERNAL_LIBRARY_GPL_LIST</code> to <code>EXTERNAL_LIBRARY_LIST</code>.</li>
<li>Compile ffmpeg <strong>without</strong> <code>--enable-gpl</code> and link to your x264/x265 that has been compiled <strong>with</strong> <code>--disable-gpl</code>.</li>
</ul>
<p>Don't forget to document and provide these changes with the FFmpeg source code that you are making available.</p>
<h2>Do I need a commercial license from x264/x265?</h2>
<p>You do if your application is not GPL compatible and is being distributed with linked x264/x265. See <a href="https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/x264-devel/2010-July/007508.html" rel="noreferrer">[x264-devel] Announcing commercial licensing for x264</a> for additional details specific to x264.</p>
<h1>Also see</h1>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://ffmpeg.org/legal.html" rel="noreferrer">FFmpeg License and Legal Considerations</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html" rel="noreferrer">GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html" rel="noreferrer">GNU General Public License, version 2</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html" rel="noreferrer">Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses</a></li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-06T19:21:51.957Z
wow!  What a great answer!
Andrew Simpson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-06-27T16:18:03.540Z
@AJ Henderson would you like to open this? it seems a popular question and answer :)
Andrew Simpson
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-18T09:32:13.300Z
Great answer! Could you please clarify what "distributed with linked x264" means? What if I distribute software that relies on ffmpeg being installed and calls it, e.g. via shell or subprocess? What if I install ffmpeg (without modyfing it) silently and subsequently call it from my software?
Georgii Oleinikov
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-13T21:16:44.107Z
I create app in c# win desktop. My app containe only this project code https://jsmpeg.com (MIT Licence). My program use ffmpeg but user need to install it. There is no source changes , user need to install binnary (download) from ffmpeg official site. Than my program use ffmpeg to start streaming. Is my app still under LGPL ?
Nikola Lukic
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-13T21:40:49.987Z
@NikolaLukic You are not distributing anything from FFmpeg, you are making the user get it, so there is nothing you need to do.
llogan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-17T20:17:52.513Z
ok, One more ;) Can i add simple credit link in about box or better not (if exist some reason  not to do it) ? Maybe i am boring but i like to make it clear to the end.
Nikola Lukic
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-17T20:54:55.180Z
@NikolaLukic It is up to you, although it is always nice to credit any open source software that your project uses.
llogan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-17T21:43:01.763Z
I agree, Thks for great info and fast answers Mr. @llogan !
Nikola Lukic
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-29T19:14:45.447Z
@llogan similar question to nikola-lukic but what if the application includes a script that does a "docker run ... jrottenberg/ffmpeg:4.1-alpine"? The application does not distribute any ffmpeg binary or container image itself but it instructs the user's docker server to download it. That still avoids the "links to x264" issue right?
jamshid
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-29T19:32:12.890Z
@jamshid You should ask on [opensource.se]
llogan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2015-02-06T19:11:46.443Z
2021-09-29T20:29:00.970Z
2021-09-29T20:29:00.970Z
llogan
<p>Not sure if I am correct posting my question here and I will of course delete this question if appropriate.</p>

<p>I have a C# desktop app using FFmpeg.<br>
I have a web service using FFmpeg.</p>

<p>I sell both products.</p>

<p>I want to know — can I distribute my desktop app with FFmpeg without paying a fee to FFmpeg people and without releasing my source code?</p>

<p>I also want to know whether I can use FFmpeg on my server for users to convert images to a video file to be emailed them.  This service is also a payable product.</p>

<p>I have read the links to the FFmpeg licensing info and I read many questions here on these boards.</p>

<p>The closet I have got to an answer is that I can use it on my web server because I am not distributing it to client PCs and I can use FFmpeg on my desktop app if I only use certain features of FFmpeg — whatever they are.</p>

<p>However, this is not definitive enough for me and I cannot afford a lawyer and you would think this question/dilemma would have been resolved somewhere by someone considered how popular FFmpeg is.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-06T17:55:47.780Z
@LordNeckbeard hi, 'many questions ' mis-spelt.  Yes I have read all that before and is still not black and white. the compilations flags.. I am using Windows build for C# app.  there is only 1 download for that build so I still do not know what to do. Reading the other questions to FFMPEG licensing I cannot see clear answers.. just guesses... hence my question :)
Andrew Simpson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-06T18:41:38.693Z
just saw the build request - thanks
Andrew Simpson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-07T00:30:53.780Z
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is about licensing for producing software, not video production.
AJ Henderson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-07T07:18:30.313Z
well in-directly it is about video production. FFMPEG seems to be a big mystery in terms of licensing and is a popular question by people. You ought to leave it up as an exception. These boards are all about helping people and this answer helps me and will other people. The trouble with SO boards is that they can become elitism. Pls do not take that as an insult. You have helped me with some of my question and I am v grateful
Andrew Simpson
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-15T19:41:56.460Z
I'm voting to reopen this question because of the vast prevalence of need for this to be answered. The 22 upvotes indicates this. This is a special case, only because of the great need for this specific question to be answered accurately.
user3643
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-14T19:11:16.203Z
@user24601 need does not make this on topic. Sorry.
Dr Mayhem
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-14T19:12:52.887Z
@DrMayhem  what so for? Is it not to help people?
Andrew Simpson
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-14T19:15:16.763Z
No. It is to help people within the scope of the site, not to answer questions outside the site scope.
Dr Mayhem
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-14T19:16:30.667Z
@DrMayhem seems to me people came to this site for specific things. This answer seems to have helped a lot if people. But hey u know best :)
Andrew Simpson
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-14T19:18:14.517Z
It's not up to me - it's up to the site scope. Mods don't set scope - we help maintain it.
Dr Mayhem
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-14T19:21:37.390Z
@DrMayhem does not really affect me. Normally if my question is deemed off scope I would delete it myself to avoid clutter. But it seems wrong to me due to the interest. I got my answer and very happy with it. People can vote to delete it. It really does not bother me. Just bored waiting for my supper so posted my replies to u. Have a nice evening ;)
Andrew Simpson
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-14T21:13:36.370Z
@drmayhem It's not too much of a stretch that licensing of video software when building video production tools falls under "how to use" that software. Yeah, this isn't about ffmpeg commands, but we've got questions on how to install it, compile it, integrate it, etc. Licensing cannot sensibly be a special case, and therefore off-topic, in light of those other questions here.
user3643
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-14T21:17:11.177Z
Further, the total number of questions like this are few yet so vitally integral to that program's use. Why *not* allow the 10 or so there are?
user3643
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-14T22:18:10.860Z
Most sites (except law.SE) disallow licencing and law questions. Why would we allow a question that is outside scope? That just makes no sense.
Dr Mayhem
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-05T09:22:19.817Z
The sense is that it has helped a lot of people.
Steve Smith
<ffmpeg>
Can I use FFmpeg in a commercial product?
Andrew Simpson
# Can I use FFmpeg in a commercial product?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-02-06)

Not sure if I am correct posting my question here and I will of course delete this question if appropriate.

I have a C# desktop app using FFmpeg.  
I have a web service using FFmpeg.

I sell both products.

I want to know — can I distribute my desktop app with FFmpeg without paying a fee to FFmpeg people and without releasing my source code?

I also want to know whether I can use FFmpeg on my server for users to convert images to a video file to be emailed them. This service is also a payable product.

I have read the links to the FFmpeg licensing info and I read many questions here on these boards.

The closet I have got to an answer is that I can use it on my web server because I am not distributing it to client PCs and I can use FFmpeg on my desktop app if I only use certain features of FFmpeg — whatever they are.

However, this is not definitive enough for me and I cannot afford a lawyer and you would think this question/dilemma would have been resolved somewhere by someone considered how popular FFmpeg is.

Thanks.

**Tags:** ffmpeg

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: @LordNeckbeard hi, 'many questions ' mis-spelt.  Yes I have read all that before and is still not black and white. the compilations flags.. I am using Windows build for C# app.  there is only 1 download for that build so I still do not know what to do. Reading the other questions to FFMPEG licensing I cannot see clear answers.. just guesses... hence my question :)  
> **username_0**: just saw the build request - thanks  
> **username_1**: I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is about licensing for producing software, not video production.  
> **username_0**: well in-directly it is about video production. FFMPEG seems to be a big mystery in terms of licensing and is a popular question by people. You ought to leave it up as an exception. These boards are all about helping people and this answer helps me and will other people. The trouble with SO boards is that they can become elitism. Pls do not take that as an insult. You have helped me with some of my question and I am v grateful  
> **username_2**: I'm voting to reopen this question because of the vast prevalence of need for this to be answered. The 22 upvotes indicates this. This is a special case, only because of the great need for this specific question to be answered accurately.  
> **username_3**: @user24601 need does not make this on topic. Sorry.  
> **username_0**: @DrMayhem  what so for? Is it not to help people?  
> **username_3**: No. It is to help people within the scope of the site, not to answer questions outside the site scope.  
> **username_0**: @DrMayhem seems to me people came to this site for specific things. This answer seems to have helped a lot if people. But hey u know best :)  
> **username_3**: It's not up to me - it's up to the site scope. Mods don't set scope - we help maintain it.  
> **username_0**: @DrMayhem does not really affect me. Normally if my question is deemed off scope I would delete it myself to avoid clutter. But it seems wrong to me due to the interest. I got my answer and very happy with it. People can vote to delete it. It really does not bother me. Just bored waiting for my supper so posted my replies to u. Have a nice evening ;)  
> **username_2**: @drmayhem It's not too much of a stretch that licensing of video software when building video production tools falls under "how to use" that software. Yeah, this isn't about ffmpeg commands, but we've got questions on how to install it, compile it, integrate it, etc. Licensing cannot sensibly be a special case, and therefore off-topic, in light of those other questions here.  
> **username_2**: Further, the total number of questions like this are few yet so vitally integral to that program's use. Why *not* allow the 10 or so there are?  
> **username_3**: Most sites (except law.SE) disallow licencing and law questions. Why would we allow a question that is outside scope? That just makes no sense.  
> **username_4**: The sense is that it has helped a lot of people.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2015-02-06. Score: 63 | Accepted answer

# Yes, you can use FFmpeg in a commercial product

* FFmpeg is licensed under the **GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 or later**.
* It is also available under the **General Public License (GPL) version 2 or later**.

  + Some features, external libraries (libx264 and libx265 for example), and various filters, require GPL. If those parts get used the GPL applies to **all** of FFmpeg.
  + See `LICENSE.md` in the source for a list of GPL parts of FFmpeg and which external libraries require GPL.
* The (L)GPL, and therefore FFmpeg, does not restrict commercial usage. You only need to properly comply with the license.
* FFmpeg is not available under any other licensing terms. There is no commercial license available (but see the x264 & x265 commercial license info below). FFmpeg does not accept or charge any fees.

# …but the (L)GPL is copyleft

If you include FFmpeg in your software, under the General Public License (GPL) version 2 or later, **you may be required to make available the source code of your software to anyone requesting it**.

Make sure your software license is compatible with the (L)GPL. This is an important and often confusing aspect of the (L)GPL. I can only suggest that you carefully read the license, the [FAQ](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html), and contact a lawyer or your legal department if you need counsel.

# What if I am only using FFmpeg but not distributing it?

You do not have to do anything if you are not distributing anything from FFmpeg.

# What about the x264 & x265 commercial licenses?

x264 and x265 are available under the GPL for free or a commercial license that you have to pay for. The commercial licenses are LGPL compatible. FFmpeg does not have an option that disables the GPL requirement for these commercial licenses so you have to do that manually. Therefore, if you purchase a commercial license from [x264 licensing](https://licensing.x264.org/) or [x265 licensing](https://x265.com/about/license-x265-and-uhdcode-for-your-product-or-service/) then you are permitted to:

* Compile x264/x265 with `--disable-gpl`.
* Modify the `configure` file in the FFmpeg source code to move libx264/libx265 from `EXTERNAL_LIBRARY_GPL_LIST` to `EXTERNAL_LIBRARY_LIST`.
* Compile ffmpeg **without** `--enable-gpl` and link to your x264/x265 that has been compiled **with** `--disable-gpl`.

Don't forget to document and provide these changes with the FFmpeg source code that you are making available.

## Do I need a commercial license from x264/x265?

You do if your application is not GPL compatible and is being distributed with linked x264/x265. See [[x264-devel] Announcing commercial licensing for x264](https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/x264-devel/2010-July/007508.html) for additional details specific to x264.

# Also see

* [FFmpeg License and Legal Considerations](https://ffmpeg.org/legal.html)
* [GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html)
* [GNU General Public License, version 2](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html)
* [Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: wow!  What a great answer!  
> **username_0**: @username_1 would you like to open this? it seems a popular question and answer :)  
> **username_6**: Great answer! Could you please clarify what "distributed with linked x264" means? What if I distribute software that relies on ffmpeg being installed and calls it, e.g. via shell or subprocess? What if I install ffmpeg (without modyfing it) silently and subsequently call it from my software?  
> **username_7**: I create app in c# win desktop. My app containe only this project code https://jsmpeg.com (MIT Licence). My program use ffmpeg but user need to install it. There is no source changes , user need to install binnary (download) from ffmpeg official site. Than my program use ffmpeg to start streaming. Is my app still under LGPL ?  
> **username_5**: @NikolaLukic You are not distributing anything from FFmpeg, you are making the user get it, so there is nothing you need to do.  
> **username_7**: ok, One more ;) Can i add simple credit link in about box or better not (if exist some reason  not to do it) ? Maybe i am boring but i like to make it clear to the end.  
> **username_5**: @NikolaLukic It is up to you, although it is always nice to credit any open source software that your project uses.  
> **username_7**: I agree, Thks for great info and fast answers Mr. @username_5 !  
> **username_8**: @username_5 similar question to nikola-lukic but what if the application includes a script that does a "docker run ... jrottenberg/ffmpeg:4.1-alpine"? The application does not distribute any ffmpeg binary or container image itself but it instructs the user's docker server to download it. That still avoids the "links to x264" issue right?  
> **username_5**: @username_8 You should ask on [opensource.se]  

---

