[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Dynamic plugins loading

Diego Biurrun diego
Sun Nov 7 14:21:35 CET 2010

On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 12:37:26PM +0100, Vladimir Pantelic wrote:
> On 11/07/2010 11:41 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 5:30 AM, Alex Converse <alex.converse at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> It all depends on how you define "care about Fedora." If by "care
> >> about Fedora" you mean FFmpeg builds and runs on fedora then yes we do
> >> care about Fedora. In fact FFmpeg builds and runs on Fedora better
> >> than Windows whose user base dwarves that of Fedora. If by "care about
> >> Fedora" you mean will bend over backwards to arbitrary Fedora policies
> >> to be included in their software distribution then, while I can't
> >> speak for everyone, I don't "care" about Fedora. By that definition I
> >> also don't care about Windows.
> > 
> > Care about Fedora = Care whether FFmpeg can be included in Fedora
> > 
> > Anyway, Michael Niedermayer says you do care about Fedora, which means
> > if Fedora requests for dynamic plugin loading, you would implement it,
> > right? Or you don't trust your leader?
> Fedora is either:
> 1) anti SW patents, then it ships no patented SW and does not encourage
> users at all to use patented SW by installing "plugins".
> or
> 2) does not want to expose itself legally due to patented SW, in that
> case it does not ship patented SW by default, but has some "extra"
> repo where people can click and install the missing pieces, in
> that case a pragmatic approach like many other distros do is
> quite simple to implement - no dynamic plugins needed.
> It seems to me, Fedora, is neither 1) nor 2)....

Fedora is 2).  That extra repo is called RPM Fusion, apparently
previously called Livna.

We are discussing a non-issue here and what is worse, we are not
discussing based on facts, just ranting and bullshitting base on
what one person or the other thinks Fedora does or must.  However,
nobody bothered to check the facts.


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list