>>> Should fall under the system library stuff the GPL defines. >> >> I may misunderstand (I am not a native speaker) but the word >> "should" imo indicates that you cannot commit your patch. >> > > The header is licensed rather liberally and doesn't actually link > against anything, I don't see it violating any licensing concerns. > With other libraries where people would like to use such reasons, the > headers are usually also license restricted, which results in quite a > different situation. > > If the header should be part of FFmpeg is just a question of if we > want it here, the license does not prevent it. > If we decide not to commit this patch, an alternative patch should be > pushed which removes the non-free requirement and updates the header > version requirement.
If I understand carl right, the question is not about the header, but about if dlopen'ing a non-free library, the CUDA and NVENC ones in this case, makes ffmpeg non-free, or if they are system libraries and thus it's ok to link against them.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel