> > >> > > >> It appears to me that NewTek abused our willingness to add an optional > > >> external nonfree library, I don't see many better options. See Ticket > > >> #7589 and a blog post by a NewTek engineer confirming the issue. > > >> > > >> Patch untested. > > >> > > >> Please comment, Carl Eugen > > > >
This patch looks wrong to me. It's seems like removing features for personal opinion. Ticket 7589, mention an incorrect build redistribution. So, right way to fix this ticket, will be (for people interesting in this kind of thing) to indicate, what need to be done, in order to have a licence compliant build. And if building in LGPL, it's a solution for provide a right binary, doesn't really understand, what it's not better mention in this ticket. And if some people have personal issue with this company, i doesn't think this mailing list and trac it's really the right place for discussing it. I agree with Ali Kizil, And the answer of newtek looks not so bad for me. The problem is maybe a licence violation (don't know and don't care), but it's very far away of selling a software with licence violation in it. This kind of agressive patch, send a very strange signal to current and future contributors/users. FFmpeg keep some options for compatibility in long term, but can remove a future useful for some people so fast (just because some people would like to send a sanction/message) ? Martin _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
