Carl, If it is indeed an abuse of the license terms, as you've purported, it would be wise to get their input on this, as Gyan Doshi has elaborated above. They are contributors to this project, and it falls to reason that the burden of addressing this falls on them.
Moving forward with such drastic steps only portrays arrogance , which is uncalled for. I've seen contributors here deal with the likes of Amazon (the recent NGCodec patch license issue comes to mind) and had that issue resolved in an amicable manner. So why can't the same be done with Newtek? On Mon, Dec 3, 2018, 19:24 Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffm...@gmail.com wrote: > 2018-12-03 17:13 GMT+01:00, Dennis Mungai <dmng...@gmail.com>: > > > Has Newtek NDI been given a chance to rectify this from their end? > > Why do you believe that this would be a useful way to go? > > > This is clearly a license violation, but taking drastic steps such > > as stripping support for their protocols is a knee jerk reaction. > > Why? > Have you ever dealt with open-source license violations? > > Please do not top-post here, Carl Eugen > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
