On 2015-12-12 20:33, Nicolas George wrote:
Le duodi 22 frimaire, an CCXXIV, Philip Langdale a écrit :
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.
It would be fairly illogical to conclude that any clause in the
license,
either GPL or LGPL, requires us to worry about the specifics of a file
we do
not know anything about since it resides on the user's system.
We only have to worry about the files that were used to build the
binary.
I actually completely agree with you, but I'm trying to make an
incremental
argument. :-)
The source code that goes into the ffmpeg build is 100% (L)GPL
compatible,
including the MIT licensed nvEncodeAPI.h. No one doubts that. This code
will dlopen nvenc.so (and the windows equivalent) on the system where it
is run. We do not know if that file exists or what licence that file
is under. It could be the nvidia binary, it could be some hypothetical
GPL reimplementation of the interface or it could rm -rf your
filesystem.
So, to me, and to you, it seems clear that the combination with
non(L)GPL
code cannot happen any earlier than when the library is actually
dlopen'ed.
--phil
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
