> From: Nicolas George > > Yufei He (12019-03-11): > > Matrox M264 is similar to other hardware codecs. > > > > I saw amf_load_library and nvenc_load_library in ffmpeg. > > Past practices do not constitute precedents. > > > We got a lot customers using ffmpeg and they want to use Matrox M264 to do > > transcoding. > > If you make the driver GPL-compatible, there will be no problem at all. > > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas George
While I don’t care much about Matrox, I’m a bit surprised about the recent sounds here. Should we expect ffmpeg to drop most hw accelerations, then? IANAL, but aren’t drivers clearly considered to be system components? In this case they would be exempted from the GPL afaic? Anyway, I thought that ffmpeg is LGPL, not GPL. It only becomes GPL as soon as someone is including GPL libraries, right? And in that case: wouldn’t it be true that only the owners of such an included GPL component could pursue and make demands against a potential violator (violating GPL but not LGPL terms)? Since ffmpeg code is LGPL, my understanding is that ffmpeg could only pursue violations of the license under which it is publishing its code, and that would be LGPL but not GPL. I’m just wondering – are those assumptions incorrect? Regards, softworkz _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
