Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
Maksym Veremeyenko (12019-03-10): > removal code authors should find the core of their hates: either NDI > technology or NewTek company Please control your wording. Hate is a toxic irrational emotion. Fighting companies that produce non-Libre software and want to profit from the efforts of the Libre software community nonetheless is a rational political stance. > FYI, > from my experience NewTek and Blackmagic are only two adequate > SDK-for-developers companies that does not requires you signing NDAs and > make it close-source from beginning... Your expectations are very low. Regards, -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
On 10.03.2019 19:04, Martin Vignali wrote: [...] The interest of sending a patch to this project is to benefit of the entire infrastructure around the ffmpeg project. Not the pleasure to read this mailing list. Taking time to have a feature/enhancement integrate inside this project, are interesting only if at the end, the integrated feature stay, otherwise is just a waste of time (for contributors, reviewers, and users). i completely agree with such statement. code part for NDI support is 100% satisfy condition of ffmpeg development - it placed in *non-free* list. removal code authors should find the core of their hates: either NDI technology or NewTek company FYI, from my experience NewTek and Blackmagic are only two adequate SDK-for-developers companies that does not requires you signing NDAs and make it close-source from beginning... -- Maksym Veremeyenko ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
Andrey Semashev (12019-03-10): > Yes. It doesn't make it less true, IMO. It makes it neither true nor false but subject to personal judgements. > I'm pointing out that there seem to be no technical reason for the removal, > but instead there is a political one. Indeed. > And apparently, there are users of the > code out there, who will be affected. Indeed. And we would be RESPONSIBLE for that. But the party CULPABLE for that is the party that makes the non-Libre software. Regards, -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
Martin Vignali (12019-03-10): > It's about the lack of consistency on this topic, and the lack of a clear > definition (documented at the project level, to avoid precisely this kind > of situation) As I said: if there is support for removing ALL non-free stuff, I am behind it too. Is it clear enough? > And now the same functionality needs to be removed because the original > creator of ndi was not nice ! I guess next time we will ask somebody to read tea leaves to know whether the company behind a piece of software or hardware will turn out to be a bully against Libre software developers. Are you fluent in tea leaves? Regards, -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
On 3/10/19 9:39 PM, Nicolas George wrote: Andrey Semashev (12019-03-10): But I think decisions like this should be based exclusively on technical grounds. Political or populist arguments are not valid for technical decisions, regardless how "good" or aligned with your personal views they might seem. Do you realize that this statement is itself a political one? Yes. It doesn't make it less true, IMO. Note that I'm not arguing for or against the removal. I don't really care. I'm pointing out that there seem to be no technical reason for the removal, but instead there is a political one. And apparently, there are users of the code out there, who will be affected. ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
Le dim. 10 mars 2019 à 18:55, Nicolas George a écrit : > Martin Vignali (12019-03-10): > > Le dim. 10 mars 2019 à 17:03, Nicolas George a écrit : > > > It's just ruining his effort to integrate this feature inside the > project. > > Please do not attribute your sentences to me. > > > This discussion just send bad message to contributors. > > If you consider "we do not want proprietary software" bad, then we will > just have to agree to disagree. > > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas George > > It's not about the choice to integrate or not proprietary libraries It's about the lack of consistency on this topic, and the lack of a clear definition (documented at the project level, to avoid precisely this kind of situation) You tell the contributor of this feature in July 2017 (it's your words): "Thanks for the patch. It looks promising." Nobody says anything about it for several months, this feature is even part of the release notes of the 3.4 (October 2017). And now the same functionality needs to be removed because the original creator of ndi was not nice ! Martin ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
Andrey Semashev (12019-03-10): > But I think decisions like this should be based exclusively on > technical grounds. Political or populist arguments are not valid for > technical decisions, regardless how "good" or aligned with your personal > views they might seem. Do you realize that this statement is itself a political one? Regards, -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
On 3/10/19 8:28 PM, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote: On Sun, 10 Mar 2019, at 18:04, Martin Vignali wrote: This discussion just send bad message to contributors. You're just encourage them to keep code improvement in their own version of ffmpeg. Maintaining an FFmpeg is hard and costly. This gives those people incentives to use open source libraries or write new ones. I would say, the message is quite the opposite. I'm not an active member of the community, so please disregard my opinion if you will. But I think decisions like this should be based exclusively on technical grounds. Political or populist arguments are not valid for technical decisions, regardless how "good" or aligned with your personal views they might seem. That is, if you care about technical quality of your project and not just "fighting the good fight". ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
Martin Vignali (12019-03-10): > Le dim. 10 mars 2019 à 17:03, Nicolas George a écrit : > > It's just ruining his effort to integrate this feature inside the project. Please do not attribute your sentences to me. > This discussion just send bad message to contributors. If you consider "we do not want proprietary software" bad, then we will just have to agree to disagree. Regards, -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
Hi, On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 1:04 PM Martin Vignali wrote: > But if this is the project policy... > Yes, I would like to propose to make this project policy. Ronald ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019, at 18:04, Martin Vignali wrote: > This discussion just send bad message to contributors. > You're just encourage them to keep code improvement in their own version of > ffmpeg. Maintaining an FFmpeg is hard and costly. This gives those people incentives to use open source libraries or write new ones. -- Jean-Baptiste Kempf - President +33 672 704 734 ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
Le dim. 10 mars 2019 à 17:03, Nicolas George a écrit : > Maksym Veremeyenko (12019-03-10): > > code you going to remove was not made by you nor NewTek company. > > > > if you have a problem with NewTek company - do a step to solve it - dont > > ruin a code. > > Nobody is ruining any code. Just removing it from a prominent > distribution and development platform. > > It's just ruining his effort to integrate this feature inside the project. The interest of sending a patch to this project is to benefit of the entire infrastructure around the ffmpeg project. Not the pleasure to read this mailing list. Taking time to have a feature/enhancement integrate inside this project, are interesting only if at the end, the integrated feature stay, otherwise is just a waste of time (for contributors, reviewers, and users). This discussion just send bad message to contributors. You're just encourage them to keep code improvement in their own version of ffmpeg. But if this is the project policy... Martin ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
Maksym Veremeyenko (12019-03-10): > code you going to remove was not made by you nor NewTek company. > > if you have a problem with NewTek company - do a step to solve it - dont > ruin a code. Nobody is ruining any code. Just removing it from a prominent distribution and development platform. Regards, -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
On 09.03.2019 22:12, Kieran Kunhya wrote: They have not responded to any communications: https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/7589 code you going to remove was not made by you nor NewTek company. if you have a problem with NewTek company - do a step to solve it - dont ruin a code. -- Maksym Veremeyenko ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote: On Sat, 9 Mar 2019, at 21:58, Marton Balint wrote: On Sat, 9 Mar 2019, Dennis Mungai wrote: > On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 23:19, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: >> 2019-03-09 21:16 GMT+01:00, Carl Eugen Hoyos : >> > 2019-03-09 21:12 GMT+01:00, Kieran Kunhya : >> >> They have not responded to any communications: >> >> https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/7589 >> > >> > Missing minor version bump >> >> Sorry about this, I used the wrong patch reading tool... >> >> > and please also post a news entry. >> >> Please do, Carl Eugen >> >> > Thanks for this. > It's long overdue (3 months is more than enough time to respond and act on > a license violation). Huh? Newtek removed the nonfree ffmpeg from their site, that was their response. So the company is no longer violating the license. Removal of past violations does not magically erase the past infrigement. Legally, OK. But as far as I know we typically ask license violators to either release the source code, or stop distribuiting the violating code. And a company that does either usually goes into the good-guys bucket. Not here. So removing NDI to punish a them for past violations does not seem fair to me. It was also unfortunate to give them ultimatums. If you look at the trac ticket, we look like the bully, and not newtek. A reasonable request would have been to ask them for protocol specs. Maybe can you do that? You are a president of a quite famous organization after all, maybe they will consider it. Thanks, Marton ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
Marton Balint (12019-03-09): > You are not removing ndi because of the license violation, you are removing > it because you don't like it. Let us assume, for the rice wine of the argument, that you are right: that we want to remove it because we do not like them. But ask yourself: why do we not like them. And he answer would be: because they make a habit of infringing Libre Software licenses when they can get away with it. Removing this is not just something internal to FFmpeg: it is an important Libre Software project helping to hold the line against hoarders. Regards, -- Nicolas George ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
Ronald S. Bultje (12019-03-09): > I would not be against removing all closed-source support. I would get behind that. Regards, -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019, at 23:58, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 4:02 PM Martin Vignali > I would not be against removing all closed-source support. I have voiced > this before in the realvideo discussion: > https://ffmpeg-devel.ffmpeg.narkive.com/Ok5y3HXO/patch-0-3-codec-wrapper-for-librv11-and-rmhd-muxer-demuxer Agreed. HwAccel and access to hardware are different (See the GPL system library), but else where is the limit of what to integrate. -- Jean-Baptiste Kempf - President +33 672 704 734 ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019, at 21:58, Marton Balint wrote: > On Sat, 9 Mar 2019, Dennis Mungai wrote: > > On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 23:19, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > >> 2019-03-09 21:16 GMT+01:00, Carl Eugen Hoyos : > >> > 2019-03-09 21:12 GMT+01:00, Kieran Kunhya : > >> >> They have not responded to any communications: > >> >> https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/7589 > >> > > >> > Missing minor version bump > >> > >> Sorry about this, I used the wrong patch reading tool... > >> > >> > and please also post a news entry. > >> > >> Please do, Carl Eugen > >> > >> > > Thanks for this. > > It's long overdue (3 months is more than enough time to respond and act on > > a license violation). > > Huh? Newtek removed the nonfree ffmpeg from their site, that was their > response. So the company is no longer violating the license. Removal of past violations does not magically erase the past infrigement. -- Jean-Baptiste Kempf - President +33 672 704 734 ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
Hi, On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 4:02 PM Martin Vignali wrote: > They have not responded to any communications: > > https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/7589 > > > > > I still do not understand the link between the ticket and the removal of > lib ndi. > Is it plan to remove all features used by people who doesn't respect the > licence ? > I would not be against removing all closed-source support. I have voiced this before in the realvideo discussion: https://ffmpeg-devel.ffmpeg.narkive.com/Ok5y3HXO/patch-0-3-codec-wrapper-for-librv11-and-rmhd-muxer-demuxer Ronald ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
They have not responded to any communications: > https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/7589 > > I still do not understand the link between the ticket and the removal of lib ndi. Is it plan to remove all features used by people who doesn't respect the licence ? If this patch concerns the removal of a library that does not match to the freedom politic of this project It need a definition somewhere, on which lib can be used in the ffmpeg project, and which not. To avoid embedding a feature, and delete it later depending of current mood (which is not very interesting for users and contributors) The ndi patch history looks like this right now: - The support lib ndi was added in August 2017 - Several fixes for this feature have been reviewed and integrated since - then the original creator of ndi, commits a license violation of ffmpeg - now ndi becomes the devil, and all the previous work will disappear, breaking some user's tools, making all the work around it very frustrating for concerned people. Martin ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019, Dennis Mungai wrote: On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 23:19, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: 2019-03-09 21:16 GMT+01:00, Carl Eugen Hoyos : > 2019-03-09 21:12 GMT+01:00, Kieran Kunhya : >> They have not responded to any communications: >> https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/7589 > > Missing minor version bump Sorry about this, I used the wrong patch reading tool... > and please also post a news entry. Please do, Carl Eugen Thanks for this. It's long overdue (3 months is more than enough time to respond and act on a license violation). Huh? Newtek removed the nonfree ffmpeg from their site, that was their response. So the company is no longer violating the license. You are not removing ndi because of the license violation, you are removing it because you don't like it. I and some others expressed already that we find it useful, so at least start a vote about it. Thanks, Marton ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 23:19, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > 2019-03-09 21:16 GMT+01:00, Carl Eugen Hoyos : > > 2019-03-09 21:12 GMT+01:00, Kieran Kunhya : > >> They have not responded to any communications: > >> https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/7589 > > > > Missing minor version bump > > Sorry about this, I used the wrong patch reading tool... > > > and please also post a news entry. > > Please do, Carl Eugen > > Thanks for this. It's long overdue (3 months is more than enough time to respond and act on a license violation). ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
2019-03-09 21:16 GMT+01:00, Carl Eugen Hoyos : > 2019-03-09 21:12 GMT+01:00, Kieran Kunhya : >> They have not responded to any communications: >> https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/7589 > > Missing minor version bump Sorry about this, I used the wrong patch reading tool... > and please also post a news entry. Please do, Carl Eugen ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
Re: [FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
2019-03-09 21:12 GMT+01:00, Kieran Kunhya : > They have not responded to any communications: > https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/7589 Missing minor version bump and please also post a news entry. Carl Eugen ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
[FFmpeg-devel] lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
They have not responded to any communications: https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/7589 Kieran 0001-lavd-Remove-libndi_newtek.patch Description: Binary data ___ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
