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

[Martin Vignali]

Le mar. 4 déc. 2018 à 16:12, Jean-Baptiste Kempf <jb at videolan.org> a écrit :

> Helllo,
>
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, at 15:00, Martin Vignali wrote:
> > 1 :
> > Removing features used by people which doesn't respect the licence,
> seems a
> > very bad thing.
>
> I disagree with you.
> Helping people violating open source licenses is not a good idea.
>

It's not just about helping Newtek or not.
My intervention in this discussion is mainly about annoy ndi/ffmpeg user
(including those who respect licence)

Of course Newtek have some interest of having ndi support inside ffmpeg
but some user can also have an interest to have this feature.

It's similar for me to other manufacturer things (for example decklink
device support have a benefit for blackmagic
and for user who need SDI record/playback).



>
> > 3 - Need a proper definition, and a dedicated discussion. To avoid
> > including code that it's not conform to the global policy of this
> project.
> > Reading this thread, it's seems like there is lot of interpretation about
> > acceptable and non acceptable not opensource part.
>
> The thing is, the license is the license, and there are a lot of
> explanations from FSF, FSFE, SFLC, and sooo many others.
>
> > - ok for not open source part from os
> > - ok for not open source part for "hardware thing", because we can think
> > it's like os thing !
>
> Yes, and this is quite documented, as part of all the GPL family of
> licenses, as part of "System Libraries".
>
> > - ok from not open source part, if it's useful ? or not ?
> > What definition of useful ? (and everything related to broadcast is not
> > useless, just because not everyone use it !)
>
> You cannot define usefulness easily.
>

That's exactly what I meant.

For including or not, some not opensource part, there will be two case
- the part which can be included in redistributable build
(i let people who have knowledge on this to decide which part can be in
these builds)

- the part which can not be included in redistributable build, and need
that the user compile himself
to enable some functionnality.
If this is just about having the right (in licence point of view) to
include or not in these kind of build,
here too i will let people with licence knowledge decide.

But if including or not, a not opensource part, it's about opinion on
utility of this part, this need to be better define.
This will avoid discussion about being useful or not, depending of opinion
of each one at the moment of a patch submission.

An impartial way, can be for example, if the component is free (in the
sense without additionnal cost) and provide a functionality not available
in another way.


> > And yes, it's better to have full opensource ndi support, instead of the
> > current situation.
> > But it's not a reason to remove features for users.
>
> But then, you will get absolutely all the integration from ALL the various
> non-open source multimedia libraries, because it is useful to someone.
> Including shims for Adobe, Dolby and others.
>

I'm probably disagree with you on this subject ! :-)



> And what is the incentive to do open source alternatives?
>
>
In a manufacturer point of view : having the functionnality available to a
wider audience, because it can be included in distributable build.

In user/contributor point of view : having more sustainability on a
feature. A full opensource code can still working if some people
have an interest of maintain/improve it.

Martin