On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, at 10:03, Tomas Härdin wrote:
> You can include LGPL code in a proprietary library if you provide the
> object files for the proprietary parts, such that you can modify the
> LGPL part and still link together a functioning library. I don't think
> I've ever seen that done
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, at 09:45, Tobias Rapp wrote:
> > I know that means that you can do more or less the same feature, but that
> > means the architecture must be different.
>
> I thought that section 7 would allow to combine a 3rd party library with
> a LGPL library to create a new library but
tis 2019-03-26 klockan 09:45 +0100 skrev Tobias Rapp:
> On 25.03.2019 18:02, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Mar 2019, at 08:32, Tobias Rapp wrote:
> > > > Most of those hardware libraries are glorified ioctls around
> > > > the driver and shipped with the drivers.
> > > > And I see this
On 25.03.2019 18:02, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019, at 08:32, Tobias Rapp wrote:
Most of those hardware libraries are glorified ioctls around the driver and
shipped with the drivers.
And I see this with nVidia, Intel MFX and Decklink (lots of "acquire C++ interface,
set
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 18:51:15 +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> Yufei He (12019-03-25):
> > Yes, it's part of the installation for the driver of the card. People
> > who have the card will install it.
> Why does it have "ffmpeg" in its name? It looks like deliberate
> circumvention; if it is, then
Yufei He (12019-03-25):
> Yes, it's part of the installation for the driver of the card. People
> who have the card will install it.
Why does it have "ffmpeg" in its name? It looks like deliberate
circumvention; if it is, then no, thanks.
> On 03/25/2019 01:04 PM, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
Yes, it's part of the installation for the driver of the card. People
who have the card will install it.
Thanks.
Yufei
On 03/25/2019 01:04 PM, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019, at 14:02, Yufei He wrote:
>> Matrox card is very similar to cards from other companies in terms of
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019, at 14:02, Yufei He wrote:
> Matrox card is very similar to cards from other companies in terms of
> accesses.
Then why do you have this specific libmvM264Ffmpeg library?
What is it? Is it part of the driver? Is it installed at the same time as the
driver?
--
Jean-Baptiste
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019, at 08:32, Tobias Rapp wrote:
> > Most of those hardware libraries are glorified ioctls around the driver and
> > shipped with the drivers.
> > And I see this with nVidia, Intel MFX and Decklink (lots of "acquire C++
> > interface, set param" there, release the C++
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 13:56 Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 13:02 Yufei He wrote:
>
>> Hardware codecs and software codecs are taking different responsibilities.
>>
>> Thanks a lot.
>>
>> Yufei.
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> You should expose the APIs to the hardware, people will buy more of
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 13:02 Yufei He wrote:
> Hardware codecs and software codecs are taking different responsibilities.
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> Yufei.
>
Hi,
You should expose the APIs to the hardware, people will buy more of them if
they can program the chip to do things as they want.
I
Hi
Matrox card is very similar to cards from other companies in terms of
accesses.
I suggest that we should differentiate hardware codec and software codec.
Hardware codecs are very strong help to FFmpeg for high resolution video
encoding and decoding like 4k. though gradually software codec
On 24.03.2019 21:14, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019, at 20:10, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
The GPL does not mention hardware (instead, they use the word "system
library"). Going from here, I don't consider enterprise-level hardware like
Matrox $$$ priced stuff to be a system library
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019, at 20:10, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> The GPL does not mention hardware (instead, they use the word "system
> library"). Going from here, I don't consider enterprise-level hardware like
> Matrox $$$ priced stuff to be a system library at all. My system certainly
> has no
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 2:21 PM Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2019, at 18:50, Marton Balint wrote:
> > > - do we want to keep any components requiring linking with non-system,
> > > closed-source software? (this might or might not include blackmagic)
> > >
> > > or some other
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 11:03 AM Thilo Borgmann
wrote:
Am 21.03.19 um 11:55 schrieb Michael Niedermayer:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 05:41:31PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 4:15 PM Gyan wrote:
>>
>>>
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019, Thilo Borgmann wrote:
Am 21.03.19 um 11:55 schrieb Michael Niedermayer:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 05:41:31PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 4:15 PM Gyan wrote:
On 21-03-2019 01:32 AM, Marton Balint wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019,
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 11:03 AM Thilo Borgmann
wrote:
> Am 21.03.19 um 11:55 schrieb Michael Niedermayer:
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 05:41:31PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 4:15 PM Gyan wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 21-03-2019 01:32 AM,
Am 21.03.19 um 11:55 schrieb Michael Niedermayer:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 05:41:31PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 4:15 PM Gyan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21-03-2019 01:32 AM, Marton Balint wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 at 18:17, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, at 16:14, Ali KIZIL wrote:
> > I think the source code itself doesn't violate GPL. It use an external
> lib,
> > just like drivers.
>
> Drivers have a GPL exception.
> external libraries do not.
>
> --
>
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 at 17:54, Maksym Veremeyenko wrote:
> On 20.03.2019 22:13, Dennis Mungai wrote:
> [...]
> > The primary agitator here seems to be kierank:
> > https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/7589?cversion=0_hist=10#comment:5
> >
> > What undisclosed history do you have with Newtek (see the
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 5:54 PM Maksym Veremeyenko wrote:
> On 20.03.2019 22:13, Dennis Mungai wrote:
> [...]
> > The primary agitator here seems to be kierank:
> > https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/7589?cversion=0_hist=10#comment:5
> >
> > What undisclosed history do you have with Newtek (see the
On 20.03.2019 22:13, Dennis Mungai wrote:
[...]
The primary agitator here seems to be kierank:
https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/7589?cversion=0_hist=10#comment:5
What undisclosed history do you have with Newtek (see the reference to
"Andrew") above that isn't disclosed above?
Secondly, you're
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 at 12:52, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, at 07:35, Dennis Mungai wrote:
> > And apparently calling out specific parties involved in this was
> translated
> > as an ad hominem attack.
>
> Single-outing one person, when you don't know half of the discussion
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 at 16:56, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, at 12:48, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> > So that's nvidia stuff (npp/cuda) and blackmagic. (I'm filtering out the
> > various ssl/aac components because they may be GPL-incompatible, but they
> > are opensource.)
>
> I
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, at 12:48, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> So that's nvidia stuff (npp/cuda) and blackmagic. (I'm filtering out the
> various ssl/aac components because they may be GPL-incompatible, but they
> are opensource.)
I explained the case for those 2 cases.
I've asked for clarifications to
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, at 12:29, Maksym Veremeyenko wrote:
> >> when do you plan to remove nVidia and BlackmagicDesign parts that is
> >> /closed source and userland/ ?
> >
> > 0) addressing me directly like that is unfair, and unjust;
>
> i just extrapolated your main statement *The work was
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 7:31 AM Nicolas George wrote:
> Maksym Veremeyenko (12019-03-21):
> > i just extrapolated your main statement *The work was removed because the
> > library is 100% closed source and userland.* that should be applied to
> any
> > parts of ffmpeg... or not?
>
> Please
Maksym Veremeyenko (12019-03-21):
> i am just trying to get attention on way and reason of how code was removed
> and floating reasons from to remove...
Then please stop your whataboutism.
Regards,
--
Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 21.03.2019 13:31, Nicolas George wrote:
Maksym Veremeyenko (12019-03-21):
i just extrapolated your main statement *The work was removed because the
library is 100% closed source and userland.* that should be applied to any
parts of ffmpeg... or not?
Please stop being shifty: what parts of
Maksym Veremeyenko (12019-03-21):
> i just extrapolated your main statement *The work was removed because the
> library is 100% closed source and userland.* that should be applied to any
> parts of ffmpeg... or not?
Please stop being shifty: what parts of FFmpeg precisely are you
suggesting to
On 20.03.2019 21:36, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 18:03, Maksym Veremeyenko wrote:
On 20.03.2019 17:37, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 16:35, Martin Vignali wrote:
[...]
We don't talk about a contribution remove for technical reason.
But a
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 05:41:31PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 4:15 PM Gyan wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 21-03-2019 01:32 AM, Marton Balint wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 20:52, Marton
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, at 07:35, Dennis Mungai wrote:
> And apparently calling out specific parties involved in this was translated
> as an ad hominem attack.
Single-outing one person, when you don't know half of the discussion is not a
nice way of interacting within this project.
Especially when
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 02:35 Ali KIZIL wrote:
> Dennis Mungai , 20 Mar 2019 Çar, 23:20 tarihinde şunu
> yazdı:
>
> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 23:02, Marton Balint wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 20:52, Marton Balint
Dennis Mungai , 20 Mar 2019 Çar, 23:20 tarihinde şunu
yazdı:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 23:02, Marton Balint wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 20:52, Marton Balint wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> >
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 4:15 PM Gyan wrote:
>
>
> On 21-03-2019 01:32 AM, Marton Balint wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 20:52, Marton Balint wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > On Wed,
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 21:20, Dennis Mungai wrote:
> At the very best, the lack of consensus on this implies vindictive intent.
> Is there something that the FFmpeg developers (see below) have against
> Newtek, as a company?
> Clearly, they took down the offending FFmpeg build:
>
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 21:20, Nicolas George wrote:
> Jean-Baptiste Kempf (12019-03-20):
> > 2) Both of those are addressing drivers for actual cards.
> > So we're not talking about userland, but accessing drivers which are
> > part of the OS, and are therefore exempted by the GPL.
>
> I am not
Jean-Baptiste Kempf (12019-03-20):
> 2) Both of those are addressing drivers for actual cards.
> So we're not talking about userland, but accessing drivers which are
> part of the OS, and are therefore exempted by the GPL.
I am not sure I agree with that interpretation. The wording is quite
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 23:02, Marton Balint wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 20:52, Marton Balint wrote:
> >> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 19:34, Marton Balint wrote:
> >> >> As I
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 21:02, Marton Balint wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 20:52, Marton Balint wrote:
> >> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 19:34, Marton Balint wrote:
> >> >> As I described
On 21-03-2019 01:32 AM, Marton Balint wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 20:52, Marton Balint wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 19:34, Marton Balint wrote:
>> As I described in similar threads
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 20:52, Marton Balint wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 19:34, Marton Balint wrote:
>> As I described in similar threads before, whether or not the project want
>> closed
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 20:52, Marton Balint wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 19:34, Marton Balint wrote:
> >> As I described in similar threads before, whether or not the project want
> >> closed source support for NDI is a subjective issue,
Marton Balint (12019-03-20):
> That is just sad an unfair.
Maybe. But let us be very clear about this: the people to blame for this
mess are those who chose a proprietary license for their library in the
first place.
Regards,
--
Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 19:34, Marton Balint wrote:
As I described in similar threads before, whether or not the project want
closed source support for NDI is a subjective issue, please start a vote
about the removal of libndi if you want to
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 19:34, Marton Balint wrote:
> As I described in similar threads before, whether or not the project want
> closed source support for NDI is a subjective issue, please start a vote
> about the removal of libndi if you want to seek this through.
The removal of libndi is
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 18:03, Maksym Veremeyenko wrote:
> On 20.03.2019 17:37, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 16:35, Martin Vignali wrote:
> [...]
> >> We don't talk about a contribution remove for technical reason.
> >> But a contributor's work remove in order to try to
Maksym Veremeyenko (12019-03-20):
> when do you plan to remove nVidia and BlackmagicDesign parts that is /closed
> source and userland/ ?
"They were talking too" is not a good strategy when the teacher tells
you to be quiet.
But I count you as one vote for removing any non-free components.
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 16:35, Martin Vignali wrote:
> > >+Support for the nonfree NDI protocol has been removed, it had
> > > been a common source of GPL violations.
> > >
> > This doesn't justify to break user tools (who respect the
On 20.03.2019 17:37, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 16:35, Martin Vignali wrote:
[...]
We don't talk about a contribution remove for technical reason.
But a contributor's work remove in order to try to annoy a licence
violator.
Absolutely not. The work was removed because
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, at 16:35, Martin Vignali wrote:
> > > >+Support for the nonfree NDI protocol has been removed, it had
> > > > been a common source of GPL violations.
> > > >
> > > This doesn't justify to break user tools (who respect the ffmpeg licence)
> >
> > tools who depend on a
Martin Vignali (12019-03-20):
> FFmpeg can be compile with GPL and non free component, if the build is not
> redistributed.
> There is no licence violation in this case.
>
> It's not because some people doesn't respect the licence, that every user
> of non free component do the same.
Making it
> > >+Support for the nonfree NDI protocol has been removed, it had
> > > been a common source of GPL violations.
> > >
> > This doesn't justify to break user tools (who respect the ffmpeg licence)
>
> tools who depend on a license violation are violating the license too...
>
FFmpeg can be
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, at 21:37, Martin Vignali wrote:
> >+Support for the nonfree NDI protocol has been removed, it had
> > been a common source of GPL violations.
> >
> This doesn't justify to break user tools (who respect the ffmpeg licence)
tools who depend on a license violation are
2019-03-19 20:11 GMT+01:00, Gyan :
>
>
> On 20-03-2019 12:03 AM, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
>
> >From a84db9c39d382a37f76ae72e490d25ca451155c4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >From: Kieran Kunhya
> >Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 18:31:39 +
> >Subject: [PATCH] News: Removal of libndi
> >
> >---
> >
>+Support for the nonfree NDI protocol has been removed, it had
> been a common source of GPL violations.
>
>
This doesn't justify to break user tools (who respect the ffmpeg licence)
and remove contributor's work.
Martin
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing
On 20-03-2019 12:03 AM, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
>From a84db9c39d382a37f76ae72e490d25ca451155c4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>From: Kieran Kunhya
>Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 18:31:39 +
>Subject: [PATCH] News: Removal of libndi
>
>---
> src/index | 5 +
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
>diff
0001-News-Removal-of-libndi.patch
Description: Binary data
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
60 matches
Mail list logo
