On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Timo Rothenpieler <t...@rothenpieler.org> wrote: >>>> Should fall under the system library stuff the GPL defines. >>> >>> I may misunderstand (I am not a native speaker) but the word >>> "should" imo indicates that you cannot commit your patch. >>> >> >> The header is licensed rather liberally and doesn't actually link >> against anything, I don't see it violating any licensing concerns. >> With other libraries where people would like to use such reasons, the >> headers are usually also license restricted, which results in quite a >> different situation. >> >> If the header should be part of FFmpeg is just a question of if we >> want it here, the license does not prevent it. >> If we decide not to commit this patch, an alternative patch should be >> pushed which removes the non-free requirement and updates the header >> version requirement. > > If I understand carl right, the question is not about the header, but > about if dlopen'ing a non-free library, the CUDA and NVENC ones in this > case, makes ffmpeg non-free, or if they are system libraries and thus > it's ok to link against them. >
The generated binary contains no non-free code, not even used a non-free header, nor does it depend on any non-free binary to run. And even if you want to cite that particular rule - if drivers are not considered part of the system, then I don't know what is. - Hendrik _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
