On 03/20/2012 10:58 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Dave Plater lst<[email protected]> > wrote: >> On 03/17/2012 01:09 AM, Campbell Barton wrote: >>> Do you have a link to the patches you're applying to blender? >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Dave Plater lst<[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> I'm getting really tired of having to continually patch blender releases >>>> to pass the openSUSE / Novell legal review. I'm led to believe >>>> that if a program doesn't link against a patent or copyright challenged >>>> library then it isn't in danger of legal action. You can understand >>>> a company like Novell being a target for such legal action. >>>> What I would like to know is what are the functions of the various xvid >>>> and ffmpeg sources/scripts. The python ones that I've glanced at >>>> seem to have the purpose of supplying parameters to ffmpeg. >> Which is not a legal problem, this is similar to what for example kde's >> kaffeine does with codecs. >>>> I'm then going to pass this information to the legal department for >>>> clarification on whether I really have to remove these bits and patch >>>> blender to build without them or not. > Here's the solution I came up with for 2.62. I modified the cmake > config using this patch[1] so that everything is handled by the > WITH_CODEC_FFMPEG cmake option. I think this patch should be > acceptable upstream and then you would only need to use the > DISTRIBUTABLE conditional in one place. > > Thanks, > Richard > > What I'm looking for is an expert explanation of what the functions with mpeg, xvid and divx are actually for because I think, parts for linking in ffmpeg audio besides, they aren't a legal problem except for their names possibly.
By the way could you send me a link for your patch or source rpm please Richard, I've got a build error concerning missing variables atm. Dave _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
