2018-12-10 9:46 GMT+01:00, Gyan :
>
> On 10-12-2018 07:41 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>> 2018-12-03 17:05 GMT+01:00, Carl Eugen Hoyos :
>>
>>> It appears to me that NewTek abused our willingness to add an optional
>>> external nonfree library, I don't see many better options. See Ticket
>>> #7589
Gyan , 10 Ara 2018 Pzt, 11:47 tarihinde şunu yazdı:
>
> On 10-12-2018 07:41 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> > 2018-12-03 17:05 GMT+01:00, Carl Eugen Hoyos :
> >
> >> It appears to me that NewTek abused our willingness to add an optional
> >> external nonfree library, I don't see many better
On 10-12-2018 07:41 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
2018-12-03 17:05 GMT+01:00, Carl Eugen Hoyos :
It appears to me that NewTek abused our willingness to add an optional
external nonfree library, I don't see many better options. See Ticket
#7589 and a blog post by a NewTek engineer confirming the
2018-12-03 17:05 GMT+01:00, Carl Eugen Hoyos :
> It appears to me that NewTek abused our willingness to add an optional
> external nonfree library, I don't see many better options. See Ticket
> #7589 and a blog post by a NewTek engineer confirming the issue.
>
> Patch untested.
After several
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, at 22:50, Martin Vignali wrote:
> > But then, you will get absolutely all the integration from ALL the various
> > non-open source multimedia libraries, because it is useful to someone.
> > Including shims for Adobe, Dolby and others.
>
> I'm probably disagree with you on
Marton Balint (2018-12-03):
> You should think about our users who compile and use ffmpeg with NDI. This
> change affects them negatively, so I don't support it.
They chose to use hardware that only works with non-free software. They
made their bed.
I support the removal.
Regards,
--
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 4:56 PM Martin Vignali
wrote:
> Le mar. 4 déc. 2018 à 16:12, Jean-Baptiste Kempf a
> écrit :
>
> > But then, you will get absolutely all the integration from ALL the
> various
> > non-open source multimedia libraries, because it is useful to someone.
> > Including
Le mar. 4 déc. 2018 à 16:12, Jean-Baptiste Kempf a écrit :
> Helllo,
>
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, at 15:00, Martin Vignali wrote:
> > 1 :
> > Removing features used by people which doesn't respect the licence,
> seems a
> > very bad thing.
>
> I disagree with you.
> Helping people violating open
Helllo,
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, at 15:00, Martin Vignali wrote:
> 1 :
> Removing features used by people which doesn't respect the licence, seems a
> very bad thing.
I disagree with you.
Helping people violating open source licenses is not a good idea.
> 3 - Need a proper definition, and a
2018-12-04 15:00 GMT+01:00, Martin Vignali :
> There is a mix of several discussion in this thread, which need to be
> discuss separately.
>
> 1 - Licence violation on a build.
[...]
> 1 :
> Doesn't really understand, how this licence violation can be fix in
> modifying the source code.
Where
There is a mix of several discussion in this thread, which need to be
discuss separately.
1 - Licence violation on a build.
2 - Opinion on Newtek behaviour
3 - Inclusion of non open source part
4 - Removal of libndi device
1 :
Doesn't really understand, how this licence violation can be fix in
On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, at 23:14, Marton Balint wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, at 19:48, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> > Libraries to access hardware, notably those that are talking directly with
> > something that was shipped with the drivers, are usually
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018, 1:14 AM Marton Balint
>
> 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
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
> Again: What message would this send to future license violators?
A bad one.
I would remove this.
--
Jean-Baptiste Kempf - President
+33 672 704 734
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
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
>
On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, at 17:05, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> It appears to me that NewTek abused our willingness to add an optional
> external nonfree library, I don't see many better options. See Ticket
> #7589 and a blog post by a NewTek engineer confirming the issue.
+1, please apply.
Newtek is a
On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
Hi!
It appears to me that NewTek abused our willingness to add an optional
external nonfree library, I don't see many better options. See Ticket
#7589 and a blog post by a NewTek engineer confirming the issue.
You should think about our users who
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018, 12:07 AM Carl Eugen Hoyos 2018-12-03 22:00 GMT+01:00, Ali KIZIL :
>
> > Newtek representative says, they will remove the binary from SDK right
> away
>
> Could you please read the sentence you sent?
> Particularly the words "says" and "will".
>
> They did not remove the
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:29 PM Martin Vignali wrote:
>
> This patch looks wrong to me.
>
> It's seems like removing features for personal opinion.
>
> Ticket 7589, mention an incorrect build redistribution.
>
> So, right way to fix this ticket, will be (for people interesting in this
> kind of
2018-12-03 22:00 GMT+01:00, Ali KIZIL :
> Newtek representative says, they will remove the binary from SDK right away
Could you please read the sentence you sent?
Particularly the words "says" and "will".
They did not remove the binariy when informed about the
license violations!
(At least,
On 12/3/18, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> 2018-12-03 21:28 GMT+01:00, Martin Vignali :
>> Ticket 7589, mention an incorrect build redistribution.
>>
>> So, right way to fix this ticket, will be (for people interesting in this
>> kind of thing)
>> to indicate, what need to be done, in order to have a
Ali KIZIL (2018-12-04):
> Personally, I do not believe they break the license on purpose. If so, they
They are a commercial entity, they have a legal department. "Not on
purpose" is not an excuse for them.
> wouldn't announce it. They would fo as some others do, by trying hide. So
> personally,
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018, 11:41 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos 2018-12-03 21:28 GMT+01:00, Martin Vignali :
> >> > >>
> >> > >> It appears to me that NewTek abused our willingness to add an
> >> > >> optional
> >> > >> external nonfree library, I don't see many better options. See
> Ticket
> >> > >> #7589 and a
Jan Ekström (2018-12-03):
> 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?
I agree.
Maybe we
2018-12-03 21:28 GMT+01:00, Martin Vignali :
>> > >>
>> > >> It appears to me that NewTek abused our willingness to add an
>> > >> optional
>> > >> external nonfree library, I don't see many better options. See Ticket
>> > >> #7589 and a blog post by a NewTek engineer confirming the issue.
>> > >>
> > >>
> > >> It appears to me that NewTek abused our willingness to add an optional
> > >> external nonfree library, I don't see many better options. See Ticket
> > >> #7589 and a blog post by a NewTek engineer confirming the issue.
> > >>
> > >> Patch untested.
> > >>
> > >> Please comment, Carl
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 8:48 PM Paul B Mahol wrote:
>
> On 12/3/18, Jan Ekström wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 6:06 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> It appears to me that NewTek abused our willingness to add an optional
> >> external nonfree library, I don't see many better
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018, 9:48 PM Paul B Mahol On 12/3/18, Jan Ekström wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 6:06 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> It appears to me that NewTek abused our willingness to add an optional
> >> external nonfree library, I don't see many better options.
On 12/3/18, Jan Ekström wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 6:06 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> It appears to me that NewTek abused our willingness to add an optional
>> external nonfree library, I don't see many better options. See Ticket
>> #7589 and a blog post by a NewTek engineer
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 6:06 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> It appears to me that NewTek abused our willingness to add an optional
> external nonfree library, I don't see many better options. See Ticket
> #7589 and a blog post by a NewTek engineer confirming the issue.
>
> Patch untested.
2018-12-03 19:12 GMT+01:00, Timo Rothenpieler :
> I contacted NewTek about this, here's the pretty much immediate response
> I got:
>
> On 03.12.2018 18:55, Andrew Cross wrote:
>> Yikes, I am pretty surprised by this to be honest I think that our intent
>> might have been entirely misconstrued.
I contacted NewTek about this, here's the pretty much immediate response
I got:
On 03.12.2018 18:55, Andrew Cross wrote:
Yikes, I am pretty surprised by this to be honest I think that our intent might
have been entirely misconstrued.
We are in no way trying to abuse anything anyone did and
Dennis Mungai (2018-12-03):
> In this case , Carl's decision to strip their code from FFmpeg is valid.
> This is a clear violation of the license terms.
Indeed.
And please stop top-posting. If you do not know what it means, look it
up.
Regards,
--
Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description:
In this case , Carl's decision to strip their code from FFmpeg is valid.
This is a clear violation of the license terms.
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018, 19:38 Nicolas George Kyle Schwarz (2018-12-03):
> > https://www.newtek.com/blog/introducing-ndi-3-5/
> >
> > > ... and we even include FFMPEG for Windows
Kyle Schwarz (2018-12-03):
> https://www.newtek.com/blog/introducing-ndi-3-5/
>
> > ... and we even include FFMPEG for Windows with NDI support for your
> > convenience, eliminating the hassle of working out how to compile it
> > yourself.
That is not how it is supposed to work. If they want
Carl,
If it is indeed an abuse of the license terms, as you've purported, it
would be wise to get their input on this, as Gyan Doshi has elaborated
above. They are contributors to this project, and it falls to reason that
the burden of addressing this falls on them.
Moving forward with such
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 11:16 AM Gyan Doshi wrote:
> On 03-12-2018 09:35 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> > It appears to me that NewTek abused our willingness to add an optional
> > external nonfree library, I don't see many better options. See Ticket
> > #7589 and a blog post by a NewTek engineer
2018-12-03 17:13 GMT+01:00, Dennis Mungai :
> Has Newtek NDI been given a chance to rectify this from their end?
Why do you believe that this would be a useful way to go?
> This is clearly a license violation, but taking drastic steps such
> as stripping support for their protocols is a knee
On 03-12-2018 09:49 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
2018-12-03 17:16 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi :
What's the link to the blog post?
Also, is anyone from Newtek on the ML - if not, is there someone we
can invite for input?
What kind of input would seem useful to you in this case?
Insight on
Hello there,
Has Newtek NDI been given a chance to rectify this from their end? This is
clearly a license violation, but taking drastic steps such as stripping
support for their protocols is a knee jerk reaction.
Let them respond before merging this PR.
Regards,
Dennis.
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018,
2018-12-03 17:16 GMT+01:00, Gyan Doshi :
> On 03-12-2018 09:35 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> It appears to me that NewTek abused our willingness to add an optional
>> external nonfree library, I don't see many better options. See Ticket
>> #7589 and a blog post by a NewTek engineer
On 03-12-2018 09:35 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
Hi!
It appears to me that NewTek abused our willingness to add an optional
external nonfree library, I don't see many better options. See Ticket
#7589 and a blog post by a NewTek engineer confirming the issue.
What's the link to the blog post?
Hi!
It appears to me that NewTek abused our willingness to add an optional
external nonfree library, I don't see many better options. See Ticket
#7589 and a blog post by a NewTek engineer confirming the issue.
Patch untested.
Please comment, Carl Eugen
From
44 matches
Mail list logo
