2019-01-28 21:09 GMT+01:00, Elliott Balsley <elliottbals...@gmail.com>: > I see this old thread about Decklink licensing, and I disagree with the > nonfree requirement.
Great! Do you speak for all FFmpeg developers or only for your commits? </sarcasm> > I can’t figure out how to reply to the old thread, but here it is for > reference: https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/patch/3230/ > <https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/patch/3230/> > Downloading the SDK from Blackmagic uses a EULA which prevents distribution, > but each individual header file contains a more permissive Boost license. > So apparently, the only part of the SDK covered by the restrictive EULA is > the PDF documentation. This means the headers could even be included in the > ffmpeg GitHub if you desire. This is not about the headers (I am sorry if I did give this impression at any point), but about the library that is loaded at runtime by FFmpeg. As long as this library is closed-source, this discussion leads nowhere. > I emailed Blackmagic to clarify this You misunderstand: It is not Blackmagic who does not want you to distribute FFmpeg with their (proprietary) library, it is us who do not allow distribution of FFmpeg binaries that link against Blackmagic libraries. You cannot change this (we cannot either), please understand that we should all invest our time in different issues. Carl Eugen _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
