[FFmpeg-devel] [DECISION] Project policy on closed source components

[Carl Eugen Hoyos]

Am Mo., 13. Mai 2019 um 22:46 Uhr schrieb Hendrik Leppkes <h.leppkes at gmail.com>:
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 10:37 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Am Mo., 13. Mai 2019 um 22:32 Uhr schrieb James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > On 5/13/2019 5:23 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> > > > Am Mo., 13. Mai 2019 um 22:18 Uhr schrieb James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com>:
> > > >>
> > > >> On 5/13/2019 5:13 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> > > >>> Am Mo., 13. Mai 2019 um 22:10 Uhr schrieb Marton Balint <cus at passwd.hu>:
> >
> > > >>>>> 1) Should libNDI support be removed from the ffmpeg codebase?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks for the votes, I counted 9 yes, 5 no, so majority is for removal of
> > > >>>> libNDI, which is already done.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The vote was not about the removal from libndi from release branches?
> > > >>
> > > >> No, features on releases are frozen, as changing them can result in
> > > >> breakages for distros and package managers.
> > > >
> > > > We have broken distros and packages before, we would not break it
> > > > in this case;-)
> > >
> > > We would. Distros and scripts would be broken, and it would not be pretty.
> >
> > Would you please be so kind as to explain (if possible in detail) how
> > this would be possible in this specific case?
> > I do not understand how removing a non-free dependency can break a
> > binary distribution.
> >
>
> There are other people that use and build ffmpeg, and track release
> branches.

But not distributions as claimed above.

> And they may as well be building only for themselves a
> non-free binary.

Absolutely.
And they can still do that after reverting a possible removal but
they would realize that we are not endorsing the library anymore.

> Release branches provide a guarantee of API, ABI and feature
> stability.

And we sadly did not always hold that guarantee=-(

> We shall not violate that for some petty feud.

I wonder if this isn't exactly a case where it should be violated.
Contrary to the cases where we - unfortunately - have
violated it in the past.

Carl Eugen