diff mbox

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

Message ID 20180214112142.5152-1-zeranoe@gmail.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Kyle Schwarz Feb. 14, 2018, 11:21 a.m. UTC 
The NewTek SDK headers are MIT licensed, so FFmpeg shouldn't need to be
nonfree to include this library.
---
 configure | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Carl Eugen Hoyos Feb. 14, 2018, 11:54 a.m. UTC | #1 
2018-02-14 12:21 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@gmail.com>:
> The NewTek SDK headers are MIT licensed, so FFmpeg
> shouldn't need to be nonfree to include this library.

Sorry, I wasn't immediately able to find the sources for the
ndi library: Please post a link.

Carl Eugen
Kyle Schwarz Feb. 14, 2018, 12:12 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:54 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2018-02-14 12:21 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@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/
Carl Eugen Hoyos Feb. 14, 2018, 12:20 p.m. UTC | #3 
2018-02-14 13:12 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:54 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2018-02-14 12:21 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@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/

(Which may already be sufficient to reject your patch.)

Do you have the sources that allow to build the library "ndi" (that
FFmpeg links against), to change it and redistribute it?

Carl Eugen
Kyle Schwarz Feb. 14, 2018, 12:32 p.m. UTC | #4 
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2018-02-14 13:12 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@gmail.com>:
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:54 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2018-02-14 12:21 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@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.
Hendrik Leppkes Feb. 14, 2018, 12:45 p.m. UTC | #5 
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2018-02-14 13:12 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@gmail.com>:
>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:54 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 2018-02-14 12:21 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@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.

- Hendrik
Kyle Schwarz Feb. 14, 2018, 12:50 p.m. UTC | #6 
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 7:45 AM, Hendrik Leppkes <h.leppkes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2018-02-14 13:12 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@gmail.com>:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:54 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 2018-02-14 12:21 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@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
Tomas Härdin Feb. 14, 2018, 12:56 p.m. UTC | #7 
On 2018-02-14 13:50, Kyle Schwarz wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 7:45 AM, Hendrik Leppkes <h.leppkes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 2018-02-14 13:12 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@gmail.com>:
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:54 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 2018-02-14 12:21 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@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/gpl-faq.en.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic

/Tomas
Carl Eugen Hoyos Feb. 14, 2018, 1:48 p.m. UTC | #8 
2018-02-14 13:50 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 7:45 AM, Hendrik Leppkes <h.leppkes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 2018-02-14 13:12 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@gmail.com>:
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:54 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 2018-02-14 12:21 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@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

I don't think they are confused: They would welcome you to distribute
FFmpeg binaries that link against their sdk. The GPL does not allow
this though.

Carl Eugen
Ricardo Constantino Feb. 14, 2018, 1:48 p.m. UTC | #9 
On 14 February 2018 at 12:56, Tomas Härdin <tjoppen@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@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 2018-02-14 13:12 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:54 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2018-02-14 12:21 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@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?
Tomas Härdin Feb. 14, 2018, 2:10 p.m. UTC | #10 
On 2018-02-14 14:48, Ricardo Constantino wrote:
> On 14 February 2018 at 12:56, Tomas Härdin <tjoppen@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@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2018-02-14 13:12 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:54 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2018-02-14 12:21 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@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?

Oh yeah, that puts a damper on things. The only way around that is 
dlopen() or RPC, neither of which is going to make it into FFmpeg

/Tomas
Nicolas George Feb. 14, 2018, 2:16 p.m. UTC | #11 
Tomas Härdin (2018-02-14):
> Oh yeah, that puts a damper on things. The only way around that is dlopen()
> or RPC, neither of which is going to make it into FFmpeg

At some point, vendors will need to realize we chose a copyleft license
to forthe them to play nice, not to put extra burdens on developers to
work around the copyleft.

I would almost propose to get rid of all the non-free stuff.

Regards,
Tomas Härdin Feb. 14, 2018, 2:33 p.m. UTC | #12 
On 2018-02-14 15:16, Nicolas George wrote:
> Tomas Härdin (2018-02-14):
>> Oh yeah, that puts a damper on things. The only way around that is dlopen()
>> or RPC, neither of which is going to make it into FFmpeg
> At some point, vendors will need to realize we chose a copyleft license
> to forthe them to play nice, not to put extra burdens on developers to
> work around the copyleft.
>
> I would almost propose to get rid of all the non-free stuff.

I wouldn't be opposed to that, but I suspect some of it enables FFmpeg 
to benefit from surplus developer time. Devs that work on companies that 
need the proprietary stuff that is. It's always a tradeoff.

/Tomas
Nicolas George Feb. 14, 2018, 3:22 p.m. UTC | #13 
Tomas Härdin (2018-02-14):
>				       Devs that work on companies that need
> the proprietary stuff that is. It's always a tradeoff.

Devs that work on companies that need the proprietary stuff could make
use of the weight of said companies to get the proprietary stuff
relicensed. But it will never happen if we give them passes.

Regards,
Maksym Veremeyenko Feb. 14, 2018, 3:28 p.m. UTC | #14 
14.02.2018 14:45, Hendrik Leppkes пише:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2018-02-14 13:12 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@gmail.com>:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:54 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 2018-02-14 12:21 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@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.

NDI sdk has a dynamic library loading method, if it used, then only 
headers files required during building binaries.

In this case, which conditions should be applied to headers files? What 
text should be provided by owner/manufacturer that allow include it into 
the source tree?
Carl Eugen Hoyos Feb. 14, 2018, 3:35 p.m. UTC | #15 
2018-02-14 16:28 GMT+01:00 Maksym Veremeyenko <verem@m1stereo.tv>:

> NDI sdk has a dynamic library loading method, if it used,
> then only headers files required during building binaries.

The feature would be removed from the non-free list if the
library sources are published under a (GPL-compatible)
open-source software license.

Carl Eugen
Hendrik Leppkes Feb. 14, 2018, 4:56 p.m. UTC | #16 
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> wrote:
> Tomas Härdin (2018-02-14):
>>                                      Devs that work on companies that need
>> the proprietary stuff that is. It's always a tradeoff.
>
> Devs that work on companies that need the proprietary stuff could make
> use of the weight of said companies to get the proprietary stuff
> relicensed. But it will never happen if we give them passes.
>

Devs don't like politics, they'll just implement the proprietary SDK
into their own proprietary code, because thats something they can just
do and in even less time as well.
So basically, you rid ffmepg of features for no improvement.

- Hendrik
wm4 Feb. 14, 2018, 7:24 p.m. UTC | #17 
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 16:22:12 +0100
Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> wrote:

> Tomas Härdin (2018-02-14):
> >				       Devs that work on companies that need
> > the proprietary stuff that is. It's always a tradeoff.  
> 
> Devs that work on companies that need the proprietary stuff could make
> use of the weight of said companies to get the proprietary stuff
> relicensed. But it will never happen if we give them passes.

You grossly overestimate the pull small companies have. Also you realize
the providers of the lib probably want to cash in on license costs?
Roger Pack June 6, 2018, 6:35 a.m. UTC | #18 
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:48 AM, Ricardo Constantino <wiiaboo@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 14 February 2018 at 12:56, Tomas Härdin <tjoppen@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@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com
> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> 2018-02-14 13:12 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:54 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos <
> ceffmpeg@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2018-02-14 12:21 GMT+01:00 Kyle Schwarz <zeranoe@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.
Gyan June 6, 2018, 6:50 a.m. UTC | #19 
On 06-06-2018 12:05 PM, Roger Pack wrote:

> FWIW.  It might be compatible with the LGPL.

configure, at present, allows all libraries in the nonfree list to be 
built with the LGPL license without having to pass --enable-nonfree. Is 
that intended?

Libav's script disables them if the flag isn't passed.

Regards,
Gyan
Carl Eugen Hoyos June 6, 2018, 1:15 p.m. UTC | #20 
2018-06-06 8:50 GMT+02:00, Gyan Doshi <gyandoshi@gmail.com>:

> configure, at present, allows all libraries in the nonfree
> list to be built with the LGPL license without having to
> pass --enable-nonfree. Is that intended?

Yes, this is intended.

Carl Eugen
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/configure b/configure
index 99c53d482a..f3a0bbafa6 100755
--- a/configure
+++ b/configure
@@ -1569,7 +1569,6 @@  EXTERNAL_LIBRARY_GPL_LIST="
 
 EXTERNAL_LIBRARY_NONFREE_LIST="
     decklink
-    libndi_newtek
     libfdk_aac
     openssl
     libtls
@@ -1618,6 +1617,7 @@  EXTERNAL_LIBRARY_LIST="
     libmodplug
     libmp3lame
     libmysofa
+    libndi_newtek
     libopencv
     libopenh264
     libopenjpeg