[Ffmpeg-devel-irc] ffmpeg-devel.log.20190320

[burek]

[02:48:45 CET] <KombuchaKip> Why does the ffmpeg write it's own ./configure manually instead of using the autotools? Isn't it more work to reinvent its functionality?
[06:50:39 CET] <cone-487> ffmpeg 03Jun Li 07master:0739d5cd5c92: avformat/smoothstreamingenc:add bitrate calculate
[09:19:33 CET] <cone-487> ffmpeg 03Lauri Kasanen 07master:ac3062f1a4e7: swscale/ppc: Clean up some mixed decl warnings
[09:19:34 CET] <cone-487> ffmpeg 03Lauri Kasanen 07master:6b5ea90eace8: swscale/ppc: Add av_unused to template vars only used in one includer
[11:43:45 CET] <cone-487> ffmpeg 03Carl Eugen Hoyos 07master:4b32f8b3ebfa: lavd: Remove libndi_newtek
[11:49:39 CET] <thardin> woop-woop
[11:51:26 CET] <durandal11707> without REVIEW and VOTES, how ABSURD !!
[11:51:49 CET] <thardin> I hadn't noticed the NDI thing until a friend of mine mentioned it over beer a few weeks ago
[11:52:41 CET] <BtbN> This is unacceptable imo. There were plenty of people voicing against it, and maybe a handful of people for it.
[11:53:07 CET] <BtbN> Yet it just got pushed.
[11:53:42 CET] <BtbN> It's a major API break, but if it can harm a big bad commercial company, that's just ok.
[11:54:17 CET] <thardin> they've been threatening RE:ers, no?
[11:55:11 CET] <BtbN> Supposedly, but to get access to the library, you need to accept a license that prohibity you from doing that. So at least legally, they were correct there.
[11:56:48 CET] <BtbN> This feels way to much like someones personal crusade rather than proper technical reasons.
[11:57:17 CET] <thardin> legally yes, ethically no
[11:58:49 CET] <thardin> but perhaps a discussion needs to be had whether ffmpeg should serve the interest of free software or the interest of capital
[11:59:20 CET] <BtbN> From what I've been told, Newtek was actively working on a "peaceful solution", that did not include shutting the project down at all, but the developers weren't cooperating. Then again, this is a very one sided view, as I have still not heard any reports from the affected developers.
[12:00:01 CET] <thardin> it's always possible to re-add it
[12:00:28 CET] <thardin> newtek can also maintain their own fork
[12:00:34 CET] <atomnuker> how is it an api break? its no different from when we've removed decoders from lavc
[12:01:06 CET] <BtbN> Those went through the regular deprecation period and everything.
[12:01:17 CET] <BtbN> This is just gone without a major bump.
[12:01:52 CET] <BtbN> I know at least two bigger Events who are affected by this, since they are using NDI setups with ffmpeg in the background.
[12:02:13 CET] <BtbN> They are now forced to use old ffmpeg code or maintain the patch themselves.
[12:02:29 CET] <BtbN> And realistically, they will probably just never update ffmpeg again.
[12:02:53 CET] <durandal11707> NDI did not wanted to send some money to us?
[12:03:38 CET] <BtbN> I think NDI does not want to talk to FFmpeg as a project at all anymore, since everyone that did got personally attacked.
[12:24:29 CET] <atomnuker> BtbN: no? libfaac didn't go through that
[12:24:57 CET] <BtbN> Pretty sure it printed a big warning for quite a while, didn't it?
[12:26:19 CET] <JEEB> yea the unfortunate point is that we weren't specific in our nonfree rules to begin with, that started the whole mess :P
[12:28:04 CET] <JEEB> if we were just "no, nonfree is not for closed source software-only things" back then we might have gone much smoother :P although even that as a rule is a slippery slope since we would prefer OSS-"standard" driver interfaces compared to minor vendor XYZ's own custom interfaces
[12:28:16 CET] <atomnuker> BtbN: nope, it didn't
[12:28:32 CET] <BtbN> weird. That also seems wrong then.
[12:28:55 CET] <atomnuker> I also removed libschroedinger, and that didn't have any warning either
[12:29:04 CET] <atomnuker> and the libnut wrapper
[12:29:10 CET] <BtbN> Well, following that rule over half of the nvidia stuff would have to go as well.
[12:29:19 CET] <BtbN> At the very least everything that uses libnpp
[12:30:33 CET] <BtbN> The rest is probably fine now that it does not use the actual CUDA SDK anymore
[12:32:45 CET] <JEEB> but yea, whatever the rule set is we should be more clear with it.
[12:33:10 CET] <JEEB> so that stuff just doesn't get pushed after X amount of time just because nobody has time or doesn't care about such and such thing
[12:33:20 CET] <BtbN> Seems like the ruleset is if someone hates the company behind the non-free part enough.
[12:33:36 CET] <BtbN> People did care about ndi, and voiced their disagreement. It just got ignored.
[12:34:51 CET] <JEEB> NDI as a feature is useful and even I agree with that; I would have preferred not to link against a non-open source implementation since it's a 100% protocol thing, and since I think enable-nonfree was not a thing to enable closed source stuff but rather just open source stuff with incompatible licenses, such as faac or fdk-aac
[12:35:14 CET] <JEEB> thus I see it as a collective failure including myself that it was not blocked during the review phase
[12:36:58 CET] <JEEB> and that goes back to the part of rules + rules on nonfree not being clear enough :P
[12:37:29 CET] <JEEB> because if someone could have just pointed towards some basic check-list that would have been a simple way to not have the patch set be pinged
[12:37:36 CET] <JEEB> until that issue got resolved
[12:38:33 CET] <BradleyS> seems that in addition to having policy regarding such additions, there should be policy regarding their removal as well
[12:38:56 CET] <JEEB> sure
[12:39:10 CET] <JEEB> but the addition part should IMHO be done first
[12:39:37 CET] <JEEB> since that minimizes the possibility of people just starting "vendettas" if it passed the check list
[12:41:06 CET] <BradleyS> removal could be quite concise and in parallel
[12:41:21 CET] <JEEB> I don't disagree
[12:41:30 CET] <BradleyS> if any party violates the license, x happens
[12:41:46 CET] <BradleyS> list remedy and also consequences for non-remedy and repeat violations
[12:42:14 CET] <BradleyS> perhaps describe a process for communication and remedy
[12:42:38 CET] <BradleyS> license violations themselves are defined by the license, so that's pretty cut and dry in theory
[12:44:07 CET] <JEEB> yes
[12:47:32 CET] <kierank> I removed a ton of aac stuff in the past that was nonfree
[12:48:33 CET] <kierank> 11:03:38 <"BtbN> I think NDI does not want to talk to FFmpeg as a project at all anymore, since everyone that did got personally attacked.
[12:48:34 CET] <kierank> hahahahaha
[12:48:43 CET] <kierank> as opposed to the guy who was sent legal threads
[12:48:44 CET] <kierank> threats
[12:48:51 CET] <kierank> you have this nonsensical belief that ndi are nice peopel
[12:49:11 CET] <BradleyS> how are they even in a position to threaten legally
[12:49:19 CET] <BradleyS> sounds like a ridiculous move on their part
[12:49:38 CET] <kierank> because they want to protect their proprietary protocol
[12:49:58 CET] <JEEB> yes, they want everyone to base it on *their* SDK
[12:50:22 CET] <BradleyS> i get the why on their end, but certainly they must realize they can't make ffmpeg include their software
[12:50:25 CET] <JEEB> anyways, that's beside the point - the point is that we let it slip through in the first place I think since so many people seem to have been against it on some level
[12:50:42 CET] <JEEB> and thus as soon as there was a "reason" to remove it, that was utilized
[14:38:14 CET] <BBB> BtbN: this is probably frustrating for some users, yes. I think in terms of a project, we've got to come to terms with the fact that there's multiple reasons some of us contribute
[14:38:36 CET] <BBB> BtbN: some of us do it for work/company; some of us do it as a hobby
[14:38:54 CET] <BBB> BtbN: there's going to be a huge difference in how you look at sth. like NDI depending on why you do it
[14:39:53 CET] <BBB> I still see my ffmpeg contributions primarily as a hobby, and so I have *huge* (like trump: **YUGE!!**) issues with closed-source code linked to by ffmpeg
[14:40:25 CET] <BBB> because I essentially see a company like NDI taking my contributions and saying "oh look let's plug it into our cash cow and use ronald's code to make EVEN MORE MONEY$$$"
[14:40:44 CET] <BBB> (I know it's not exactly like that, but that's how some of us feel about it anyway)
[14:43:23 CET] <BBB> if your contributions are work/company in nature, this is probably hugely annoying, "why can't these kids grow up" - and again, I get it, I have a job etc.
[14:44:21 CET] <JEEB> well I don't think the project having a guide line / check list for contributions being a sign of immaturity
[14:44:30 CET] <durandal11707> lol people who removed ndi are not doing it because its their hobby
[14:44:47 CET] <BBB> they're doing it b/c they're pissed off
[14:44:47 CET] <JEEB> that's just what we lack right now, and that's why we get these things where something like NDI can get into the code to begin with
[14:44:51 CET] <JEEB> :P
[14:45:02 CET] <BBB> I agree NDI should never have been let in
[14:45:04 CET] <JEEB> (clearly software only, closed source)
[14:45:08 CET] <BBB> I proposed a vote on closed-source contributions
[14:45:14 CET] <BBB> but nobody seconded it
[14:45:20 CET] <BBB> so... :-/
[14:45:31 CET] <kierank> BBB: I think hardware closed source is a tricky one
[14:45:37 CET] <thardin> working with ffmpeg professionally doesn't need to imply one wants proprietary stuff in it
[14:45:44 CET] <thardin> that's an opensourceism
[14:45:53 CET] <kierank> ^ that
[14:46:53 CET] <BBB> probably true, yes
[14:47:59 CET] <JEEB> yea, hardware is less simple. what is enough of open source (vaapi could also be thought of as a dload wrapper, but we don't have an issue with it atm), and what is considered as "OS provided interfaces" esp. with something like linux
[14:48:11 CET] <JEEB> closed source vs fully open source are clear cut
[14:51:19 CET] <thardin> it amounts to kicking the can to kernel devs. which may be fine
[14:51:52 CET] <thardin> in theory libre hardware and/or drivers could be made that use the same APIs
[14:52:26 CET] <thardin> and libre silicon is slowly becoming a thing
[14:53:58 CET] <BBB> yeah
[14:54:08 CET] <BBB> I really don't like the hardware or system exceptions
[14:54:17 CET] <BBB> the way I understand it is that it means there is an open alternative
[14:54:24 CET] <BBB> even if the one a particular user may be using could be closed
[14:54:32 CET] <BBB> if there's only closed options, it's literally just a loophole
[14:54:39 CET] <BBB> and then I don't buy the exception anymore
[14:55:07 CET] <JEEB> for proprietary OS the GPL exception is funny enough more clear-cut since DXVA2 or D3D11VA or VideoToolbox (mac) are all OS interfaces xD
[14:55:21 CET] <thardin> even rms accepts propreitary software if it's in devices he doesn't expect to need to hack. like microwaves
[14:55:22 CET] <BBB> "the user may have a non-GPL-compatible libc, but there's also GPL-compatible libc with the same interface so it's ok"
[14:55:39 CET] <BBB> I don't see how that works for NDI
[14:55:46 CET] <BBB> is there an open version of NDI?
[14:55:47 CET] <JEEB> yea, NDI clearly was outside
[14:56:01 CET] <JEEB> it's not hardware, and it's not an OS provided interface
[14:56:02 CET] <BBB> and as for nvidia...
[14:56:05 CET] <BBB> I don't know
[14:56:17 CET] <kierank> BBB: no
[14:56:18 CET] <kierank> closed source
[14:56:28 CET] <JEEB> (also I noted "not hardware" but that doesn't mean justby being hardware it's OK)
[14:56:35 CET] <BBB> right
[14:56:39 CET] <JEEB> just that it makes it even more clear
[14:57:04 CET] <JEEB> since we have OSS wrappers for hardware drivers, such as VAAPI or nvdec already
[14:57:42 CET] <JEEB> and with proprietary systems we just have OS provided interfaces, which are OK even according to GPL (which is more strict than LGPL)
[14:57:55 CET] <JEEB> (the ones I juts mnetioned for hwdec)
[15:03:12 CET] <thardin> shouldn't enabling libnvidia-encode1 make the build non-free?
[15:03:28 CET] <thardin> uhm, assuming nvenc is using it..
[15:04:41 CET] <thardin> ah cuda_nvcc is
[15:04:41 CET] <nevcairiel> we dont link against that, there is a OSS loader in between
[15:05:08 CET] <j-b> nvidia thingie is for drivers
[15:07:20 CET] <nevcairiel> (and we've come to the conclusion a few years ago that the graphics driver can safely be considered a system library)
[15:07:59 CET] <j-b> I agree
[15:08:02 CET] <j-b> NDI is not a driver
[15:08:17 CET] <j-b> NDI is not part of the system libraries
[15:08:18 CET] <nevcairiel> yeah that thing definitely doesnt fall under any exceptions
[15:08:21 CET] <j-b> NDI is not open source
[15:08:25 CET] <j-b> NDI should go.
[15:08:26 CET] <nevcairiel> but thats why the build with it was non-free
[15:08:38 CET] <j-b> non-free is a mistake
[15:08:54 CET] <nevcairiel> although it really was the only thing in the non-free  list that wasnt either hardware or some incompatible oss license
[15:09:06 CET] <j-b> see the homebrew rules
[15:09:57 CET] <j-b> I would argue that libfdk-aac must go too
[15:10:26 CET] <j-b> but at least, this one is open-source, but not *GPL-compatible
[15:10:28 CET] <durandal11707> remove everything
[15:10:33 CET] <j-b> same for openssl
[15:10:44 CET] <nevcairiel> speaking of openssl, didnt they want to relicense that
[15:10:53 CET] <BtbN> it's an ongoing endeavour
[15:10:56 CET] <j-b> yes, they want to
[15:11:20 CET] <j-b> tbh, they are doing it now.
[15:11:34 CET] <nevcairiel> i had to use gnutls because of that, and compiling that is awlays so annoying :-D
[15:12:17 CET] <j-b> Technically, the openssl usage is not-nonfree on OSX
[15:12:19 CET] <JEEB> j-b: the non-free in FFmpeg used to be just "incompatible OSS licenses"
[15:12:30 CET] <j-b> JEEB: that is always how I understood it
[15:12:44 CET] <j-b> JEEB: I remember suggesting calling it non-gplcompat
[15:12:46 CET] <JEEB> that should just be documented so that people wouldn't try to pull a fast one with closed source stuff
[15:12:51 CET] <JEEB> :P
[15:12:58 CET] <JEEB> (like some have been able to)
[15:13:12 CET] <durandal11707> so does that means no MF wrapper can go in?
[15:13:17 CET] <JEEB> MF is OS
[15:13:21 CET] <JEEB> just like DirectShow
[15:13:23 CET] <JEEB> or DXVA2
[15:13:26 CET] <JEEB> or D3D11VA
[15:13:33 CET] <JEEB> so technically if we want it, it's a system lib
[15:13:33 CET] <durandal11707> we have apple shit too
[15:13:34 CET] <JEEB> :P
[15:13:52 CET] <JEEB> the question is then purely opinionated, do we want it and how does the code look?
[15:13:56 CET] <j-b> durandal11707: which ones?
[15:14:02 CET] <durandal11707> just remove all support for non-open source code at once
[15:14:14 CET] <JEEB> like the windows C runtime?
[15:14:16 CET] <j-b> durandal11707: I would argue that this is exactly what was done
[15:14:44 CET] <j-b> JEEB: courmisch's opinion, for example, is that compiling with MSVC is not-GPL compatible.
[15:14:54 CET] <j-b> JEEB: and same for every crt that is not installed by default
[15:15:00 CET] <durandal11707> j-b: audiotoolbox
[15:15:07 CET] <j-b> durandal11707: part of the OS
[15:15:21 CET] <durandal11707> OS that is not OSS
[15:15:35 CET] <nevcairiel> so if I compile with  msvc on windows 10, which comes with the correct crt already, its fine then? =p
[15:15:56 CET] <durandal11707> i said, no tolerance will be made
[15:16:22 CET] <j-b> nevcairiel: if you compile with gcc with the crt from win10, yes.
[15:16:50 CET] <j-b> but with msvc, it is always game-over, since the compiler adds code
[15:17:05 CET] <j-b> This is a minority opinion, though. But it has some valid points
[15:17:47 CET] <nevcairiel> the compiler is freely available without even a sign-up wall or anything though, so at the very least it should be able to make  LGPL binaries
[15:22:14 CET] <j-b> but it is not part of the OS,technically.
[15:32:00 CET] <j-b> nevcairiel: as for me, I don't care, because the fact that MSVC is not part of Windows is mostly a size issue.
[15:41:57 CET] <philipl> Ok, so we got to compilers. The historical GPL context is that the first GPL software was compiled with proprietary compilers and that was considered fine - there were no free compilers.
[15:42:11 CET] <philipl> MSVC or nvcc are proprietary compilers. So what?
[15:43:29 CET] <j-b> the historical context was that the compiler was part of the OS.
[15:43:50 CET] <j-b> but that is why I don't care about MSVC, but I'm just saying that some people do care.
[15:44:27 CET] <philipl> I care because I think the argument for putting nvcc under non-free is the same one that either says msvc is compatible or it is not.
[15:45:28 CET] <philipl> I've talked to various people outside our community here who deal with linux and open source development and licencing seriously and they think it's a crazy question to even ask.
[15:46:05 CET] <j-b> philipl: can I help by saying I will bring this up with Bradley Kuhn next time I see him?
[15:46:26 CET] <philipl> j-b: please do. He's never replied to me when I've emailed him about it - not that I really expected a reply.
[15:46:39 CET] <j-b> philipl: yes, but I am more annoying than you :)
[15:46:44 CET] <philipl> heh.
[15:46:46 CET] <j-b> and I know Karen quite a bit :)
[15:47:11 CET] <j-b> but I have to say that I need to understand more about nvcc
[15:47:52 CET] <philipl> It does various things, but the thing it does for us, that matters, is that it compiles the cuda source to an intermediate assembly format. which is then compiled to gpu binary code at runtime by the driver.
[15:48:08 CET] <philipl> So it doesn't even have the fuzzy issue of injecting code fragments.
[16:07:18 CET] <vel0city> durandal11707: We can talk here if you want, maybe it'll be quicker (if so, read my newest reply first)
[16:28:25 CET] <BtbN> The big difference is that you can easily and freely get _a_ C compiler to build ffmpeg with.
[16:28:44 CET] <BtbN> But you can not get any other nvcc without going through nvidias registration process and agreeing to two EULAs.
[16:30:15 CET] <durandal11707> vel0city: ther are multi-pages tiffs
[16:30:46 CET] <philipl> While that's true, I don't see how it actually intersects with the GPL any differently. Many other and previous proprietary compilers had similar burdens.
[16:30:52 CET] <philipl> Pre OpenJDK java worked that way
[16:34:52 CET] <vel0city> durandal11707: Right, related to NewSubfileType Bit1 that I mentioned. But those are not handled atm, are they?
[16:35:20 CET] <durandal11707> no, support is incomplete
[16:36:11 CET] <vel0city> Good to know, but is it related to my patch?
[16:38:11 CET] <durandal11707> no, but you could implement it
[16:53:27 CET] <jdarnley_obs> you found one
[16:53:29 CET] <vel0city> durandal11707: I could in the future, but what about this one?
[16:53:39 CET] <jdarnley_obs> wrong channel
[16:54:07 CET] <vel0city> don't want to merge it so incomplete?
[16:55:36 CET] <durandal11707> vel0city: write more lines
[16:58:07 CET] <vel0city> durandal11707: Anything more specific to suggest? :p
[16:58:34 CET] <vel0city> I suppose working on improving something for TIFF fiels would be more contained, probably better for a qualification task.
[16:59:06 CET] <durandal11707> TIFF is so huge, just anything
[16:59:11 CET] <vel0city> yeah
[16:59:16 CET] <vel0city> got any multi-page tiffs?
[16:59:31 CET] <durandal11707> don't think so
[17:01:03 CET] <vel0city> oh nvm, apparently photoshop can save its layers as tiff pages
[17:01:56 CET] <vel0city> any pointers on how to demux to multiple images? maybe some existing formats I can look at?
[17:07:07 CET] <durandal11707> vel0city: you are not doing demuxers
[17:07:26 CET] <durandal11707> just skip/ignore it
[17:10:26 CET] <cone-487> ffmpeg 03Carl Eugen Hoyos 07master:6fcf7adc019b: lavc/tiff: Support decoding 16bit cmyk.
[17:11:55 CET] <faLUCE> Hello. is the lavf matroska muxer strictly coupled with AVCodecContext? It seems that codecpars for the avstream require "extradata" value that can be obtained only with a full AVCodecContext initialization. Then, it could be a bug of the matroska muxer
[17:14:42 CET] <vel0city> right, decoder not demuxer
[17:15:16 CET] <vel0city> what do you mean by "ignore it"? isn't the goal to decode all pages in a tiff?
[17:15:32 CET] <vel0city> you mean like, have the user select the page they want?
[17:17:05 CET] <cone-487> ffmpeg 03Carl Eugen Hoyos 07master:ba0a56e0b004: lavc/qtrle: Avoid an unaligned 64-bit write.
[17:19:36 CET] <cone-487> ffmpeg 03Carl Eugen Hoyos 07master:a171cafb3559: lavf/sdp: Change pointer to configuration from char* to uint8_t*.
[17:20:22 CET] <durandal11707> vel0city: select
[17:20:44 CET] <vel0city> cool
[17:23:42 CET] <cone-487> ffmpeg 03Carl Eugen Hoyos 07master:801d78f0d898: lavc/truehd_core: Initialize the last bytes of the output buffer.
[17:39:47 CET] <cone-487> ffmpeg 03Carl Eugen Hoyos 07master:5247c4328bb9: lavf/spdifenc: Do not overwrite buffer when muxing TrueHD.
[17:43:40 CET] <cone-487> ffmpeg 03Carl Eugen Hoyos 07master:7be245498b1d: lavf/http: Print metadata updates with -loglevel verbose.
[17:50:57 CET] <cone-487> ffmpeg 03Carl Eugen Hoyos 07master:82fd7866a3d7: lavc/tiff: Allow decoding of cmyka (five components).
[18:02:38 CET] <cone-487> ffmpeg 03Carl Eugen Hoyos 07master:4602456c4f18: lavc/arbc: Use AV_WB24() where applicable.
[18:40:31 CET] <cone-487> ffmpeg 03Carl Eugen Hoyos 07master:9461e4bc694b: lavf: Constify AVOutputFormat pointer.
[18:54:40 CET] <cone-487> ffmpeg 03Carl Eugen Hoyos 07master:3aa6208db966: lavf: Constify AVInputFormat pointer.
[18:57:27 CET] <cone-487> ffmpeg 03Carl Eugen Hoyos 07master:cc49341084f0: lavf/avformat: Add a warning that ff_const59 is not part of the public api.
[19:05:36 CET] <cone-487> ffmpeg 03Carl Eugen Hoyos 07master:6a3520bf9845: lavf: Constify AVProbeData* in av_probe_input_format().
[20:40:43 CET] <j-b> I'm sooo surprised that people like this NDI thing
[20:42:01 CET] <nevcairiel> honestly i dont even know wtf it does
[20:42:07 CET] <nevcairiel> i tried to read about it and it just confused me
[20:42:11 CET] <thardin> seems it's a protocol for piping video?
[20:42:22 CET] <j-b> yes
[20:43:04 CET] <j-b> it's a protocol to replace SDI and make it over IP
[20:43:10 CET] <j-b> so, UDP+FEC
[20:45:59 CET] <thardin> FEC feels like something that belongs in the link layer
[20:46:47 CET] <nevcairiel> so .. TCP? =p
[20:47:06 CET] <thardin> or ARQ or SCTP or
[20:48:52 CET] <BtbN> There isn't really any alternative to NDI, even though it would be easy to implement it with existing open tools, nobody put the parts together.
[20:48:59 CET] <j-b> RIST and SRT
[20:49:17 CET] <BtbN> It's pretty much just mDNS and an mjpeg stream via some low-latency protocol
[20:49:31 CET] <j-b> with a custom codec
[20:49:56 CET] <BtbN> mJpeg works just fine for the same purpose, on high quality settings.
[20:50:42 CET] <BtbN> But it's really the ease of use that makes NDI popular. On the setups we use we just plug every device into the 10G network, and on the Main-PC all the various sources just show up and can be added to the scene.
[20:51:37 CET] <BtbN> That includes a lot of hardware transcoders and the like, where implementing an open solution wouldn't even be possible.
[20:51:49 CET] <j-b> yes, that, I agree, it is simple to use.
[20:52:23 CET] <j-b> but open solutions are always possible
[20:52:30 CET] <BtbN> The alternative to that setup would be a dozen capture cards and an equal amount of SDI wires
[20:53:28 CET] <BtbN> Or a capture PC on every single output, that converts to mjpeg and does mDns stuff to announce the stream. And then there is not really network protocol that reliably allows joining the stream.
[20:53:52 CET] <j-b> SRT or RIST should allow to do that
[20:54:33 CET] <BtbN> Both don't look exactly popular or widely adopted
[20:56:33 CET] <BtbN> Their codec is also interesting in that it offers a nice tradeof between speed, quality and no generation loss.
[20:57:04 CET] <j-b> No denying that.
[20:57:15 CET] <j-b> but that does not warrant an inclusion in FFmpeg
[20:58:22 CET] <BtbN> The result of the removal pretty much means that nobody will ever touch the ffmpeg version running on various devices in that setup.
[20:59:38 CET] <BtbN> With it's popularity and wide adoption, ffmpeg supporting it is very much warranted.
[21:02:46 CET] <nevcairiel> if they wanted that to be possible, they could just open-source it, or at least stop being generally evil towards open-source (ie. sueing any attempts at independent implementations)
[21:03:03 CET] <j-b> and violating FFmpeg, x264 licenses
[21:03:32 CET] <BtbN> They fixed that, but nobody seems to care.
[21:03:46 CET] <j-b> Fixing a violation does not repair the violation
[21:03:56 CET] <BtbN> They want to make money by selling commericial licenses.
[21:04:11 CET] <j-b> "I stopped stealing from the shop 6 months ago, why do you arrest me?"
[21:04:23 CET] <j-b> what kind of argument is that?
[21:04:37 CET] <BtbN> What kind of comparison is that? No damage was done.
[21:04:37 CET] <j-b> They are greedy, you mean?
[21:05:47 CET] <j-b> The cannot get both the "we want to be in FFmpeg, so we can be everywhere" and "we want to sell our library"
[21:05:52 CET] <j-b> It is one, or the other
[21:06:23 CET] <j-b> Not cool? maybe. but this is what the (L)GPL are about
[21:06:56 CET] <BtbN> Which is why it clearly makes the build non-free.
[21:07:43 CET] <BtbN> This whole debate really does not make FFmpeg look good. A bunch of people I talked to found the ticket on trac and immediately decided that "the ffmpeg people" are at fault here.
[21:07:47 CET] <j-b> Non-free was for open-source projects with non-GPL compatible licenses
[21:08:26 CET] <j-b> Not for merging non-open-source software
[21:08:45 CET] <BtbN> Nobody merged the whole library. Just a wrapper for it.
[21:08:52 CET] <BtbN> Which itself was under a free license.
[21:08:54 CET] <j-b> Because then, you merge RVHD, Adobe, Microsoft dll loader, QT
[21:09:11 CET] <j-b> and then, why not merge EVE, technicolor, and Fraunhoffer decoders
[21:09:32 CET] <BtbN> If they are useful and available, yes, why not?
[21:09:52 CET] <j-b> I disagree.
[21:10:10 CET] <j-b> but that's a point where we're going to agree to disagree
[21:10:27 CET] <BtbN> The really biggest problem of this whole thing is the insame amount of hate some people put into it.
[21:10:50 CET] <durandal11707> ndi stuff is not freely available at all?
[21:10:50 CET] <j-b> And seeing the current debate on funding open source, that is the hot topic, I think the opposite:
[21:10:53 CET] <BtbN> This could have been solved without personally attacking anyone, and with proper discussion.
[21:11:09 CET] <BtbN> NDI stuff is available free of cost, but you have to agree to a license. And you have to pay if you use it comercially.
[21:11:11 CET] <j-b> removal of this NDI makes the FFmpeg project look good.
[21:11:24 CET] <BtbN> Nobody I talked to agreed to that.
[21:11:33 CET] <BtbN> Sounded more like it makes FFmpeg look like GPL extremists.
[21:11:57 CET] <j-b> You talk to people who profit from FFmpeg a lot, and don't contribute
[21:12:17 CET] <j-b> like a lot of the broadcaster comapanies
[21:12:25 CET] <BtbN> If there is nobody profiting from a project, the project in itself is pointless.
[21:12:39 CET] <j-b> come on
[21:12:53 CET] <j-b> FFmpeg is used everywhere without needed to violate our own license
[21:12:54 CET] <BtbN> Can't we just relicense everything to 3-Clause BSD?
[21:13:26 CET] <j-b> too late
[21:14:01 CET] <nevcairiel> You can profit from it and still help the overall community
[21:14:04 CET] <j-b> and that goes directly against the current debate of funding open source
[21:14:36 CET] <j-b> FFmpeg is used everywhere, and the removal of a niche library is not gonna impact that
[21:14:41 CET] <BtbN> The projects I'm working with are all non-profit Charity events btw.
[21:14:52 CET] <cone-487> ffmpeg 03Michael Niedermayer 07master:21b90435d602: tools/target_dec_fate.list: add issues 4000 to 6000
[21:14:53 CET] <cone-487> ffmpeg 03Michael Niedermayer 07master:8f63fa4c2ec1: avcodec/scpr: Perform frame copy later
[21:14:54 CET] <cone-487> ffmpeg 03Michael Niedermayer 07master:9d20901b92b5: avcodec/arbc: Check nb_segments before allocating and copying frame
[21:15:09 CET] <kurosu> j-b: equating Technicolor and Fraunhoffer to EVE was mean :p
[21:15:18 CET] <j-b> kurosu: I know :)
[21:15:28 CET] <j-b> I was trolling BBB, who's my friend.
[21:16:01 CET] <kurosu> I suppose that if one highlight doesn't work, this one has to :D
[21:16:17 CET] <j-b> :D
[21:16:49 CET] <j-b> BBB is the one advocating against closed-source, while he could be one profitting from it.
[21:25:02 CET] <durandal11707> lets add VFW to ffmpeg
[21:25:53 CET] <j-b> exactly
[21:28:36 CET] <jamrial> kierank: someone came to the conclusion you're the main "agitator" in this whole NDI thing :p
[21:29:28 CET] <j-b> lol
[21:29:41 CET] <j-b> this guy is a mpv developer, no?
[21:29:49 CET] <j-b> I answered very politely
[21:31:19 CET] <gnafu> j-b: I would like to see EVE included in ffmpeg.
[21:31:28 CET] <gnafu> In the form of BBB open sourcing EVE ;-D.
[21:32:47 CET] <gnafu> I know I don't have a stake in it, at least as far as not having contributed any code, but I definitely feel that a GPL violation does harm and is only truly made up for when the offending closed source is made open.
[21:33:28 CET] <gnafu> Maybe not "as bad" as stealing a loaf of bread or robbing a bank, but still "bad".  It's a violation, and doing nothing in response sends a message that violations are okay.
[21:34:21 CET] <gnafu> Otherwise, why use GPL?  I would love it if a) we lived in a world where everyone wanted to contribute out in the open, and b) everything could then just be BSD-licensed with no worries.
[21:35:02 CET] <gnafu> But I think the GPL has a place specifically because people don't always play nice.  You need a legal recourse sometimes.
[21:35:56 CET] <thardin> robbing a bank isn't bad
[21:36:58 CET] <thardin> and yes, gpl is necessary because without it you just get enclosure
[21:48:42 CET] <BBB> huh :)
[21:48:54 CET] <BBB> I specifically said that if realvideo was accepted, I'd send an eve patch also
[21:49:04 CET] <BBB> (since then apparenntly closed source is not an issue)
[21:49:14 CET] <BBB> I'm obviously joking, closed source has no place in ffmpeg
[21:50:30 CET] <JEEB> j-b: i don't remember his name on any recent prs but being polite is always good even if the other side isn't as much
[21:50:55 CET] <uau> j-b: who were you asking about being an mpv developer?
[21:51:18 CET] <gnafu> BBB: :-)
[21:52:49 CET] <JEEB> we aren't lgpl, but i think there are people who think that closed source can not be utilized in lgpl software becsude it makes publishing the source for the lgpl component impossible
[21:53:37 CET] <JEEB> I will have to see if I reply on ml but I feel like the discussion has to be steered towards msking a setof guide lines
[21:54:13 CET] <JEEB> (i don't like the word rules)
[21:56:30 CET] <BBB> I agree
[21:56:52 CET] <BBB> in the end, the broader issue is not legal, but community preference
[21:57:28 CET] <BBB> and that should be addressed by the whole community, not just its loudest voices
[21:57:37 CET] <JEEB> *we aren't gpl
[21:57:55 CET] <JEEB> man beer makes typing in a train harder
[21:58:04 CET] <JEEB> BBB: aye
[21:58:25 CET] <BBB> so.... vote? :D
[21:58:30 CET] <j-b> gnafu: lol :)
[21:59:30 CET] <j-b> I think people here are underestimating the inpact of FFmpeg out there.
[21:59:51 CET] <JEEB> i think some sort of poll from the people who pushed during the ladt 12-24 months makes sense or something to gauge people's feelings
[21:59:53 CET] <j-b> It is now becoming the standard for cloud encoding
[22:00:22 CET] <j-b> If you don't put a limit, it will get patches for everything under the sun
[22:00:30 CET] <JEEB> yes
[22:00:48 CET] <JEEB> real video was just the beginning
[22:01:38 CET] <kierank> jamrial: rofl I am accused of being influential
[22:01:55 CET] <j-b> gnafu: I attack regularly on VLC for GPL violations
[22:02:35 CET] <j-b> In the more philosophical sense, the respect for our licenses is the social contract of our communities
[22:02:50 CET] <gnafu> j-b: Totally.
[22:02:57 CET] <JEEB> kierank: why don't I have beers with you so we can decide on the future of things :D
[22:03:07 CET] <j-b> this is the only thing that gets us together
[22:03:10 CET] <JEEB> ye influential one
[22:03:13 CET] <j-b> (and Brexit hate)
[22:03:21 CET] <gnafu> I also agree that sometimes the perception of ffmpeg undersells just how foundational it is to so much of the modern multimedia web.
[22:03:47 CET] <JEEB> we sre at the same point the butt of people's jokes
[22:04:02 CET] <JEEB> but at the same point a lot of stuff wpuldn't exist
[22:04:07 CET] <JEEB> without FFmoeg
[22:04:18 CET] <gnafu> I'd rather that than be thought of as more important only to be easily replaced.
[22:04:23 CET] <JEEB> (sorry for the touchscreen English)
[22:04:37 CET] <j-b> kierank: can I attack you too? for fun, though! :D
[22:04:38 CET] <gnafu> JEEB: I, for one, am so offended.
[22:04:41 CET] <gnafu> ;-D
[22:05:00 CET] <JEEB> ;D
[22:06:00 CET] <gnafu> #triggered
[22:06:17 CET] <j-b> Offended! Did you remember this page on unencyclopedia
[22:06:33 CET] <gnafu> Sounds familiar.
[22:06:49 CET] <j-b> It was the most horrible page of the internet
[22:06:54 CET] <j-b> even I could not bear it :)
[22:10:04 CET] <jdarnley_obs> :( Have I been missing out on a shit show?
[22:26:29 CET] <thardin> jdarnley_obs: just look at the libndi threads in the archives
[22:28:16 CET] <thardin> btw, what ff-related conferences are there? I know of vdd, but i recall there's a few more. and ibc of course
[22:29:48 CET] <jdarnley_obs> fosdem often has a large ffmpeg contingent
[22:30:29 CET] <thardin> fosdem is on my list of things to visit next time. and ccc
[22:30:41 CET] <jdarnley_obs> there's been an open media room the past few years
[22:44:04 CET] <j-b> thardin: fosdem and vdd. I advise demuxed, foms, nab, ibc too.
[22:44:08 CET] <j-b> less open source, though
[22:44:45 CET] <durandal11707> NTTW is only about FFmpeg
[22:45:05 CET] <JEEB> no that is the mediainfo conf
[22:45:06 CET] <JEEB> :V
[22:45:14 CET] <JEEB> but I still will try to join
[22:46:08 CET] <j-b> good point
[22:49:35 CET] <thardin> j-b: ack, north america
[22:49:48 CET] <thardin> that's going to be a pain to get to
[22:51:06 CET] <thardin> durandal11707: nttw?
[22:51:14 CET] <JEEB> no time to waste
[22:51:18 CET] <JEEB> I think octobero r so?
[22:51:44 CET] <durandal11707> *wait
[22:52:26 CET] <thardin> october last year
[22:56:24 CET] <thardin> we've been tossing around the idea starting a foss conference here in umeå lately. especially since there's fossnorth in gothenburg which isn't particularly north at all :]
[22:57:52 CET] <BBB> thardin: I hear NAB is full of ffmpeg also
[22:58:11 CET] Action: BBB runs
[22:58:46 CET] <cone-487> ffmpeg 03Aman Gupta 07master:9e40c97a844d: doc/ffmpeg: muxdelay and muxpreload are output options
[22:59:14 CET] <thardin> BBB: getting across the pond is a huge hassle 
[23:01:43 CET] <BBB> some of us attend vdd, and some attend linuxtag also
[23:02:03 CET] <Gramner> umeå? I'd attend
[23:03:12 CET] <atomnuker> every day on this channel is an ffmpeg conference if you feel like it, lol
[23:03:56 CET] <thardin> yes
[23:05:16 CET] <thardin> Gramner: noted
[23:06:16 CET] <atomnuker> plus, there are some things you can only do here
[23:06:43 CET] <atomnuker> like referencing a meme without your organs exploding out of your body to escape the shame
[23:08:05 CET] <thardin> memes can only be referenced afk with the utmost irony with friends, and even then it's risky
[23:09:47 CET] <thardin> and let's not forget the classic ircing with someone who sits at the same dinner table
[23:11:40 CET] <j-b> atomnuker: can't we do that on other cool channels?
[23:13:45 CET] <atomnuker> depends on how srs bsns other channels are
[23:38:02 CET] <cone-487> ffmpeg 03Carl Eugen Hoyos 07master:3ac474892c38: lavf/allformats: Remove an accidentally committed line.
[23:54:33 CET] <cone-487> ffmpeg 03James Almer 07master:70c8c8a818f3: avcodec/hevcdec: decode at most one slice reporting being the first in the picture
[00:00:00 CET] --- Thu Mar 21 2019