[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] configure: Change license required for NewTek SDK

[Roger Pack]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:48 AM, Ricardo Constantino <wiiaboo at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 14 February 2018 at 12:56, Tomas Härdin <tjoppen at acc.umu.se> wrote:
>
> > On 2018-02-14 13:50, Kyle Schwarz wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 7:45 AM, Hendrik Leppkes <h.leppkes at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com
> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> 2018-02-14 13:12 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe at gmail.com>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:54 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <
> ceffmpeg at gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2018-02-14 12:21 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe at gmail.com>:
> >>>>>>> Sorry, I wasn't immediately able to find the sources for the
> >>>>>>> ndi library: Please post a link.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> The only official way I know to get the SDK is by providing them
> with
> >>>>>> an email when selecting "Download": https://www.newtek.com/ndi/sdk/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Do you have the sources that allow to build the library "ndi" (that
> >>>>> FFmpeg links against), to change it and redistribute it?
> >>>>>
> >>>> No, the library comes pre built in the SDK.
> >>>>
> >>> If you need to link against a proprietary binary, then the resulting
> >>> binary is no longer GPL compatible, and as such non-free, no matter
> >>> the license of the headers.
> >>>
> >> Good to know, thanks for clearing this up. Sounds like NewTek might be
> >> a little confused about this:
> >> https://ffmpeg.zeranoe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=42&p=13238#p13238
> >>
> >
> > This applies only to the CLI. The libraries are LGPL, so things may be
> > different there depending on how things are packaged/linked. The LGPL
> > permits distributing proprietary object files such that a functioning
> > library may be linked together. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/g
> > pl-faq.en.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic
> >
> >
> The SDK license agreement also mentions that it's unredistributable.
> Doesn't that make it as nonfree as decklink's?
>

Interestingly, they SDK license says the SDK is "non redistributable" but
says that particular files can override that.

for instance here is the file "Processing.NDI.Lib.h" header:


// NOTE : The following MIT license applies to this file ONLY and not to
the SDK as a whole. Please review the SDK documentation
// for the description of the full license terms, which are also provided
in the file "NDI License Agreement.pdf" within the SDK or
// online at http://new.tk/ndisdk_license/. Your use of any part of this
SDK is acknowledgment that you agree to the SDK license
// terms. THe full NDI SDK may be downloaded at
https://www.newtek.com/ndi/sdk/
//
//***********************************************************************************************************************************************
//
// Copyright(c) 2014-2017 NewTek, inc
//
// Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this software and associated documentation
// files(the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction,
including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify,
// merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and / or sell copies of the
Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
// furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions :
//
// The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
//
// THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
// MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.IN
NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE
// FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF
CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
// WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
//
//***********************************************************************************************************************************************

…

FWIW.  It might be compatible with the LGPL.