2018-12-03 19:12 GMT+01:00, Timo Rothenpieler <t...@rothenpieler.org>: > I contacted NewTek about this, here's the pretty much immediate response > I got: > > On 03.12.2018 18:55, Andrew Cross <acr...@newtek.com> wrote: >> Yikes, I am pretty surprised by this to be honest I think that our intent >> might have been entirely misconstrued.
(Note that this is hard to believe but this is not relevant.) >> We are in no way trying to abuse anything anyone did and if they want us >> to not distribute FFMPEG then we'd be very happy to stop doing that ... we >> did this purely as a public service because loads of people complained >> (hundreds) to use about NDI not being part of the FFMPEG nightly builds. >> We had initially tried to help make it part of the nightly builds but got >> a lot of push-back and it did not seem worth the fight (our headers are >> MIT licensed and you can download our run-times for free, so it is no >> different than say nvEnc, etc... that are all parts of the builds). At the >> end of the day, we make no money of NDI and just give it away and support >> it for free so it is hardly part of an evil ploy to corrupt anyone ;) >> >> I'd prefer not to jump in the middle of the thread, but we are happy to >> work with anyone on this, our only goal is to serve people using NDI and >> if FFMPEG do not want us to distribute it then we're happy to do that, >> likewise if they want us to change the options we're also happy to do >> that. We'd be happy to do what we reasonably can for it to be part of the >> nightly builds as well ... >> >> Feel free to pass this along and anyone can email me directly who wants >> too. Don't you agree that there is something missing in this message? >> Andrew > I think the easiest way out here would be to make an LGPL build instead? What kind of message does this send to future license violators? Carl Eugen _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
