On 14 February 2018 at 12:56, Tomas Härdin <tjop...@acc.umu.se> wrote:
> On 2018-02-14 13:50, Kyle Schwarz wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 7:45 AM, Hendrik Leppkes <h.lepp...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Kyle Schwarz <zera...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 2018-02-14 13:12 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zera...@gmail.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:54 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2018-02-14 12:21 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zera...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>> Sorry, I wasn't immediately able to find the sources for the >>>>>>> ndi library: Please post a link. >>>>>>> >>>>>> The only official way I know to get the SDK is by providing them with >>>>>> an email when selecting "Download": https://www.newtek.com/ndi/sdk/ >>>>>> >>>>> Do you have the sources that allow to build the library "ndi" (that >>>>> FFmpeg links against), to change it and redistribute it? >>>>> >>>> No, the library comes pre built in the SDK. >>>> >>> If you need to link against a proprietary binary, then the resulting >>> binary is no longer GPL compatible, and as such non-free, no matter >>> the license of the headers. >>> >> Good to know, thanks for clearing this up. Sounds like NewTek might be >> a little confused about this: >> https://ffmpeg.zeranoe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=42&p=13238#p13238 >> > > This applies only to the CLI. The libraries are LGPL, so things may be > different there depending on how things are packaged/linked. The LGPL > permits distributing proprietary object files such that a functioning > library may be linked together. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/g > pl-faq.en.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic > > The SDK license agreement also mentions that it's unredistributable. Doesn't that make it as nonfree as decklink's? _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
