(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 matter if the headers are > free, since the libraries will be required for any development anyway. >
good point, with another fun answer: in order to successfully use the entire thing, indeed a non-free shared library is required. the fun part is, that this library is *not* part of the SDK. the library is part of another piece of non-free software. however, this other piece (including the library) is not protected by the same EULA, and it doesn't forbid the distribution (it doesn't explicitely allow it either; so i might need to check that with upstream as well). in any case, the SDK comes with a thin wrapper (BSL-licensed) that dlopen()s the library. so to answer your question: afaict, all the files required to *develop* software are licensed under the BSL (but protected by "the EULA"). (and to *use* it you need their properietary library, drivers, firmware and hardware). @pabs, regarding alternative hardware: this doesn't help me much given the couple of Decklink cards lying around in my office. the question however is really targetted at what I am allows to do with files that include a BSL boilerplate but are hidden behind a EULA that forbids distribution. oh, btw: upstream only introduced that EULA last year or so. some versions of the headers in question are already shipped in Debian. most likely these versions pre-date the surrection of the EULA-wall (so they're distributed under the BSL in good faith). vcmxfg IOhannes
