On Mon, Dec 3, 2018, 9:48 PM Paul B Mahol <[email protected] wrote: > On 12/3/18, Jan Ekström <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 6:06 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi! > >> > >> It appears to me that NewTek abused our willingness to add an optional > >> external nonfree library, I don't see many better options. See Ticket > >> #7589 and a blog post by a NewTek engineer confirming the issue. > >> > >> Patch untested. > >> > >> Please comment, Carl Eugen > > > > 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. > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
> > While there is a non-free option and while there are lots of HW related > implementations done by developers in such condition for long time, I > believe it is not right to remove all thesd valuable work. This will > definitely break to courage to submit new developments to FFmpeg. I also think, Newtek is not in a way to hide things as they share the post. I believe they thought their approach is normal, when considering the current case examples. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
