[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavd: Remove libndi newtek

[Ali KIZIL]

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018, 1:14 AM Marton Balint <cus at passwd.hu wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, at 19:48, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> >> > On the general idea of this - agreed.
> >> >
> >> > Separately I think we should at least bring up a possible rethink of
> >> > our policy about non-open source nonfree components.
> >> >
> >> > If it's:
> >> > - Not part of the OS
> >> > or
> >> > - Not open source
> >> >
> >> > ...maybe we should not include such a component upstream?
> >>
> >> Yes, remove all hardware stuff +1.
> >
> > Libraries to access hardware, notably those that are talking directly
> with something that was shipped with the drivers, are usually considered
> part of the OS. This is a bit weird, but this extend the Linux way to other
> (broken) OSes.
> >
> > That would make nvenc and such acceptable.
> >
> > NDI is not hardware. (Nor is faac)
>
> I really don't want to troll here, but there is an NDI PTZ camera:
>
> https://www.newtek.com/camera/ndihx-ptz1/
>
> So is it really that different to a USB camera just because the
> singalling is going through ethernet and not USB?
>
> Regards,
> Marton
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel


+1 or PCIe

Just a suggestion: there can be a request from well known brands who are
making contributions to FFmpeg to donate for hiring a lawyer who has
proficiency on OSS subject for both US and EU laws. It will be for their
and community's benefit, as there will be an independent point of view. I
believe there can be donators from community too. Time to time, it is
noticable users as asking for non-free compile subject.

This approach can bring a proper action for similar cases and avoid in
further. The lawyer can be supportive on CoC subject either.

>
>