(I am not a lawyer, the following is my personal opinion and not legal advice) Quoting Top Secret (2024-09-11 14:21:21) > Hello, > > We are trying to redistribute a ffmpeg binary commercially. We use free > version for generally decoding video only(some demuxing). We want to use > nvidia's suggestion of using the GPU with ffmpeg. They give a sample > configure string like so: > ./configure --enable-cuda --enable-cuvid --enable-nvdec --enable-nvenc > --enable-nonfree --enable-libnpp --extra-cflags=-I/usr/local/cuda/include > --extra-ldflags=-L/usr/local/cuda/lib64 > > In here we notice --enable-nonfree which basically means we can't give ffmpeg > commerically right?
No, AFAIU it means you cannot distribute such a build at all, since there is no well-defined license for it. > Well looking into this legal wise... If we get NVidia's written consent that > a lawyer can use in a court of law, alter configure script to say libnpp is > not considered "non-free" and ditch that string would it be okay? > > NVidia seems to advocate for FFmpeg use. If its not permissible, then would > it make sense to just use opencv's implementation of ffmpeg which then > advertises a completely different license(Apache). If you want a redistributable build with NPP, Nvidia would have to relicense NPP to something LGPL-compatible. -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
