On Tue, Dec 4, 2018, 1:14 AM Marton Balint <c...@passwd.hu wrote: > > > On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote: > > > On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, at 19:48, Paul B Mahol wrote: > >> > On the general idea of this - agreed. > >> > > >> > Separately I think we should at least bring up a possible rethink of > >> > our policy about non-open source nonfree components. > >> > > >> > If it's: > >> > - Not part of the OS > >> > or > >> > - Not open source > >> > > >> > ...maybe we should not include such a component upstream? > >> > >> Yes, remove all hardware stuff +1. > > > > Libraries to access hardware, notably those that are talking directly > with something that was shipped with the drivers, are usually considered > part of the OS. This is a bit weird, but this extend the Linux way to other > (broken) OSes. > > > > That would make nvenc and such acceptable. > > > > NDI is not hardware. (Nor is faac) > > I really don't want to troll here, but there is an NDI PTZ camera: > > https://www.newtek.com/camera/ndihx-ptz1/ > > So is it really that different to a USB camera just because the > singalling is going through ethernet and not USB? > > Regards, > Marton > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
+1 or PCIe Just a suggestion: there can be a request from well known brands who are making contributions to FFmpeg to donate for hiring a lawyer who has proficiency on OSS subject for both US and EU laws. It will be for their and community's benefit, as there will be an independent point of view. I believe there can be donators from community too. Time to time, it is noticable users as asking for non-free compile subject. This approach can bring a proper action for similar cases and avoid in further. The lawyer can be supportive on CoC subject either. > > _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel