>>> 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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

ffmpeg-devel mailing list

Reply via email to