Re: EULA vs BSL,EULA vs BSL

IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote: > (please CC me, as i'm not subscribed to the list) > > On 2017-11-20 22:20, Walter Landry wrote: >>> >>> now i wonder, are these header files licensed under the EULA or under >>> the BSL? >> >> Are the headers sufficient for

Re: EULA vs BSL,EULA vs BSL

(please CC me, as i'm not subscribed to the list) On 2017-11-20 22:20, Walter Landry wrote: >> >> now i wonder, are these header files licensed under the EULA or under >> the BSL? > > Are the headers sufficient for development, or does it require some > compiled libraries? If so, it does not

Re: EULA vs BSL,EULA vs BSL

IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote: > hi, > > i was playing with the idea about packaging the Decklink SDK by > Blackmagic (this is an SDK to access digital video grabbing cards). > the SDK consists of a dozen or so header files, and some example code, > including

Re: EULA vs BSL

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 10:24 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote: > i was playing with the idea about packaging the Decklink SDK by > Blackmagic (this is an SDK to access digital video grabbing cards). It might be better to invest in more Free Software friendly cards that are supported by

EULA vs BSL

hi, i was playing with the idea about packaging the Decklink SDK by Blackmagic (this is an SDK to access digital video grabbing cards). the SDK consists of a dozen or so header files, and some example code, including pre-compiled binaries. there's also a 200 pages manual on how to use the SDK.