Hello Hendrik,
Thursday, October 8, 2015, 11:43:37 PM, you wrote:
HL> We're not talking about dynamic linking here though, but runtime loading.
HL> Can I not use VAAPI because the underlying driver behind it may be closed
HL> source?
I do not know I'm not expert. But most likely VAAPI
Hello All,
Since libmfx is not under GPL, Intel asked to correct "configure" behavior
for --enable-libmfx option to avoid licenses violation:
./configure --enable-libmfx
- allowed
./configure --enable-libmfx --enable-gpl
-prohibited, error message
./configure --enable-libmfx --enable-gpl
Am 08.10.2015 17:40 schrieb "Ivan Uskov" :
>
> Hello All,
>
> Since libmfx is not under GPL, Intel asked to correct "configure" behavior
> for --enable-libmfx option to avoid licenses violation:
> ./configure --enable-libmfx
> - allowed
>
> ./configure --enable-libmfx
Hello Hendrik,
Thursday, October 8, 2015, 7:03:36 PM, you wrote:
HL> That doesn't seem correct to me. The mfx dispatcher library has the BSD
HL> license plastered all over it. BSD is compatible with the GPL.
Dispatcher, yes, but mfx library by itself which loaded by dispatcher is not.
HL> On
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:55 AM Ivan Uskov wrote:
> Hello Hendrik,
>
> Thursday, October 8, 2015, 7:03:36 PM, you wrote:
>
> HL> That doesn't seem correct to me. The mfx dispatcher library has the BSD
> HL> license plastered all over it. BSD is compatible with the GPL.
>
Hello Timothy,
Thursday, October 8, 2015, 8:29:31 PM, you wrote:
>> HL> That doesn't seem correct to me. The mfx dispatcher library has the BSD
>> HL> license plastered all over it. BSD is compatible with the GPL.
>> Dispatcher, yes, but mfx library by itself which loaded by dispatcher is
>> not.
Am 08.10.2015 21:21 schrieb "Ivan Uskov" :
>
> Hello Timothy,
>
> Thursday, October 8, 2015, 8:29:31 PM, you wrote:
> >> HL> That doesn't seem correct to me. The mfx dispatcher library has
the BSD
> >> HL> license plastered all over it. BSD is compatible with the GPL.
> >>