On 27.12.2017 15:31, Nicolas George wrote:
Vasile Toncu (2017-12-27):
It is because of licencing issues. I wanted the new filter to be LGPL.
Thanks for the explanation. That is a valid reason.
But as is, it would result would be duplicated code for people who do
not worry about licensing.
Are there any features that tinterlace has and this new filter has not?
If not, then I think it would be better to just replace tinterlace
entirely.
The main difference between those those two filters is that reinterlace
processes
planes of output frames in parallel.
Another difference is that reinterlace introduces two new modes, which
are described at [1]
I can answer myself: tinterlace has asm optimizations. This is not for
me only to decide, but I am rather against having duplicated features
just for licensing reasons.
In this particular instance, I think you could use the GPL asm
optimizations while having the filter itself LGPL.
Your arguments are valid, but what happens if I want to use a GPL
tinterlace in an closed source application that will be distributed.
[1] http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2017-December/223066.html
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
