On 10.12.2015 20:37, Nicolas George wrote: > Le decadi 20 frimaire, an CCXXIV, Andreas Cadhalpun a écrit : >> Using the header, one could create a dummy libfoo.so containing only >> stub functions. > > Exactly. > >> I don't think the FSF would agree [1]. > > They do not make the law.
Neither do you or I. > Claiming that the GPL enforces more than it can is obviously their game. Ultimately, the only definitive answer can come from a court decision, which will hopefully not be needed here. >> The GPL does not require that programs can run, only that distributors >> provide the source code of everything that is needed to run the program, >> except system libraries. >> >> So you can distribute e.g. a GPL binary linking with libfoo.so, without >> distributing libfoo.so, as long as you distribute the source code >> of libfoo.so. >> However, claiming that libfoo.so is not required to run the binary >> would be bizarre. > > Once again, exactly. I agree that having the program not work at all would > probably not be sustainable. But for an optional feature (a codec, for > example), having a GPL-compatible stub libfoo.so that just prints "feature > not available" is perfectly legal. One could argue endlessly about where to draw the line... On the other hand I think we agreed to not enable nvenc by default, so lets just do it that way. That leaves the question of whether or not to include the header, but I have no strong opinion on that. Best regards, Andreas _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
