On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 22:40, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote:
> No need to Cc me, I am subscribed to the list. > > Yufei He (12019-03-28): > > In windows, we need provide the interface library mvM264.lib to our > > customers so that they can build. But driver installation of the card > > does not have the interface library. It just install mvM264.dll. > > > > We call dlopen to load mvM264.dll on runtime. It's simpler. That's > > the way we are doing now in other projects.. > > It may be simpler for your infrastructure, but it is not simpler for > FFmpeg users, and it actually feels like a deliberate attempt at > circumventing the license. > > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas George > > It's actually a deliberate attempt at circumventing the license. Clearly that dynamic library *can* be built from source, as its' separable from the device driver. What's preventing Matrox from releasing this library such that users can build it themselves? And why should FFmpeg inherit the maintenance burden of dealing with an opaque ABI whose breakage is guaranteed with version bumps? _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
