[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] avcodec/nvenc: Include NVENC SDK header

[Hendrik Leppkes]

Am 10.12.2015 17:10 schrieb "Andreas Cadhalpun" <
andreas.cadhalpun at googlemail.com>:
>
> On 10.12.2015 16:49, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun
> > <andreas.cadhalpun at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> The GPL-3 requires that the 'Corresponding Source' of the distributed
object code
> >> is also distributed. This is defined as [1]:
> >> The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all
the source
> >> code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the
object
> >> code[...]
> >> For example, Corresponding Source includes [...] the source code for
[...]
> >> dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed
to require,
> >> such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those
subprograms
> >> and other parts of the work.
> >>
> >
> > This rule does not apply to system libraries,
>
> Yes.
>
> > which I still am quite
> > sure a hardware driver would fall under (and we can argue about that
> > all day, you won't get any "proof" either way)
> > If a particular system does not actually package this particular
> > library, then their distribution of FFmpeg should probably just not
> > enable nvenc, its of no use without the library anyway.
>
> But if it did, it would certainly not fall under the system library
exception.
> If that's the only thing that allows distribution of compiled nvenc.c,
> it shouldn't be enabled by default.
>

I don't mind disabling it by default, if that alleviates some concerns.

> > You could argue the same thing for QuickSync, the only difference is
> > that it depends on some sort of "dispatcher" library that sits between
> > FFmpeg and the closed-source library.
>
> Yes, that looks like a similar problem.
>
> > Does the existence of a tiny dispatcher library suddenly "fix" these
> > rules?
>
> I don't think so, but I haven't looked at the code.
>
> > That would be silly. Yet it is widely accepted that linking
> > against libmfx for qsv is fine.
>
> If it is 'widely accepted' that distribution of the resulting object
> code is GPL compatible, then you can certainly provide links
> to statements from experts saying so, e.g. from someone from the FSF.
> Unless you do, 'widely accepted' is a void argument.
>
> Best regards,
> Andreas
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel