Helllo, On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, at 15:00, Martin Vignali wrote: > 1 : > Removing features used by people which doesn't respect the licence, seems a > very bad thing.
I disagree with you. Helping people violating open source licenses is not a good idea. > 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. The thing is, the license is the license, and there are a lot of explanations from FSF, FSFE, SFLC, and sooo many others. > - 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 ! Yes, and this is quite documented, as part of all the GPL family of licenses, as part of "System Libraries". > - 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 !) You cannot define usefulness easily. > 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. But then, you will get absolutely all the integration from ALL the various non-open source multimedia libraries, because it is useful to someone. Including shims for Adobe, Dolby and others. And what is the incentive to do open source alternatives? -- Jean-Baptiste Kempf - President +33 672 704 734 _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
