[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Dynamic plugins loading

[Nicolas George]

Le sextidi 16 brumaire, an CCXIX, Felipe Contreras a ?crit?:
> Didn't you read what I just said? The "build dependency" is on the
> *source* package, being 'ffmpeg', this builds many binary packages:
> ffmpeg, ffmpeg-libs, ffmpeg-devel, ffmpeg-encumbered-codecs. The only
> difference between these packages is which files are contained, but
> they were all built from the same original source package.

So Fedora accepts its sources to be less redistributable than its binaries?
That is quite strange indeed.

> When was H.264 claimed to be public domain?

If that is necessary for the sake of the argument, I can endorse the clown's
hat:

I claim that H.264 is not patent-encumbered.

That is clearly wrong, of course. Any clown on Internet can claim anything,
and even if that clown's name is Google or On2, that does not make it more
true than a technical analysis.

Now, I will follow Carl Eugen's advice and stop trolling.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20101106/c2ba1ea0/attachment.pgp>