On 19/10/16 17:18, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
Thats the general interpretation of the license situation. If you
include non-free headers, your binary becomes non-free, hence why
building with cuda currently requires the --enable-nonfree option.
No. This is a generalization and cannot make sense. At best does it ignore the
individual licenses and their particular terms and discards them for a convenience.
From what I can tell does only one condition apply here, which is regarding the
use of the header files. There is however no reproduction, disclosure,
distribution or modification of these headers happening here, which is what is
prohibited by Nvidia. The note about its use is then meant to free Nvidia itself
from any warranty and liability claims and all they are asking is for users of
their libraries and header files to include this note into their code. I find it
absurd to claim this would make ffmpeg non-free software. Not to acknowledge
Nvidia's wish for freedom is the same as trying to deny Nvidia their freedom. Or
you could just absurdly claim that a license such as the GPL, requiring to be
included at any time, would in itself be a limitation of your freedom and thus
void the license and agreement. The last thing I want is for anyone to start
wearing tin foil hats.
I believe a more sensible and reasonable view of the situation is needed here.
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
