On August 11, 2025 6:10:52 AM PDT, Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc>
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 09:22:26PM +0900, Lynne wrote:
> > Option 3 - we have an official source plugin interface, free for
> > everyone to use, with license limitations. All source plugins
> > The list of source plugins would be maintained by us, and
> > policing of the list for violations (including using
> > dlopen() to workaround licensing) would be left to us.
> > The list of such plugins would be maintained by us.
>
> Id like to point out that testing for dlopen() is a matter of
> "git grep dlopen" after the "git merge" of teh plugins
> Similarly we can require any specific license or contract text in a
> plugin and can verify that automatically. (similar to fate-source)
> Thus turning a non compliant plugin into a contract violation
If we were to forbid dlopen-ing proprietary code we have several plugins we'd
therefore have to remove: decklink, anything using cuda, almost any windows
stuff (but we could use the excuse that it's part of the OS or that it works
with Wine), probably more
Jacob
_______________________________________________
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".
