On 2015-12-12 19:26, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
On 12.12.2015 11:35, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun
<andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
On 12.12.2015 10:50, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
We should just add an exception into the license to explicitly allow
using it with the NVIDIA CUDA library and be done with this debate
for
ever.
That would be an option.
You know that Open-Source has failed when the project itself is
arguing days and days for including a feature on license reasons
that
any closed-source app would just write, enable and offer to its
users
without a second thought.
Please try to take a step back.
The "nvenc" feature is already included in FFmpeg, just not enabled
by
default.
And not enabled on any distribution, hence 99% of all users don't see
it or get to use it.
You can't blame distributors for following our license.
Anyway, I think your idea about a license exception would be a good
solution.
We could add a special exception to nvenc.c, allowing its use with
Nvidia's
blobs, something like [1]:
In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders give you
permission to combine this code with free software programs or
libraries
that are released under the GNU LGPL and with code included in the
standard
release of the CUDA and NVENC libraries under the NVIDIA Software
License
(or modified versions of such code, with unchanged license).
You may copy and distribute such a system following the terms of the
GNU LGPL
for this code and the licenses of the other code concerned.
Note that people who make modified versions of this code are not
obligated
to grant this special exception for their modified versions; it is
their
choice whether to do so. The GNU Lesser General Public License gives
permission to release a modified version without this exception; this
exception also makes it possible to release a modified version which
carries
forward this exception.
This is fair enough, but I want to close out the LGPL conversation. The
FAQ
specifically discusses GPLv2 and GPLv3 and not LGPL, and I'll claim
that's because
it doesn't apply. The fact that a third party can take LGPL ffmpeg and
combine it
with proprietary code in certain ways means that clearly we can do so as
well. it
would be highly illogical to conclude that section 6/7 do not apply to
the original
code itself and that we need to construct a separate entity that does
the combination
for it to be licence compliant.
--phil
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
