On 20.03.2019 21:36, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 18:03, Maksym Veremeyenko wrote:
On 20.03.2019 17:37, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 16:35, Martin Vignali wrote:
[...]
We don't talk about a contribution remove for technical reason.
But a contributor's work remove in order to try to annoy a licence
violator.
Absolutely not. The work was removed because the library is 100% closed source
and userland.
when do you plan to remove nVidia and BlackmagicDesign parts that is
/closed source and userland/ ?
0) addressing me directly like that is unfair, and unjust;
i just extrapolated your main statement *The work was removed because
the library is 100% closed source and userland.* that should be applied
to any parts of ffmpeg... or not?
notably when NDI was not removed by me.
you supported it
[...]
3b)
Decklink headers are open source, but are normally distributed in a package
that is not open-source.
Whether the license of the headers is stronger than the package license is not
clear. It is also not clear if someone who agreed to the package license can
redistribute those headers to the other people?
GPL code that runtime load close-source proprietary library...
--
Maksym Veremeyenko
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
