There is a mix of several discussion in this thread, which need to be discuss separately.
1 - Licence violation on a build. 2 - Opinion on Newtek behaviour 3 - Inclusion of non open source part 4 - Removal of libndi device 1 : Doesn't really understand, how this licence violation can be fix in modifying the source code. Removing features used by people which doesn't respect the licence, seems a very bad thing. 2 - Nothing to do in this mailing list. Except trying to influence technical aspect, with emotional stuff. "It appears to me that NewTek abused our willingness..." or "Newtek is a big bully against open source developers, threatening to sue." is not really what we can call "a technical argument". The choice of adding or removing a feature, is (i hope) not link, to the behaviour of the original creator. 3 - Need a proper definition, and a dedicated discussion. To avoid including code that it's not conform to the global policy of this project. Reading this thread, it's seems like there is lot of interpretation about acceptable and non acceptable not opensource part. - ok for not open source part from os - ok for not open source part for "hardware thing", because we can think it's like os thing ! - ok from not open source part, if it's useful ? or not ? What definition of useful ? (and everything related to broadcast is not useless, just because not everyone use it !) 4 - libndi device is part of ffmpeg for now. Removing it without at least a deprecation period, will just break by surprise every working tools based on that even for user who respect the terms of the licence and build themselves ffmpeg with this support (like mention by Marton Balint). Bad message send to people who respect the licence ! :-) And yes, it's better to have full opensource ndi support, instead of the current situation. But it's not a reason to remove features for users. Martin _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
