[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH]lavd: Remove libndi newtek

[Ali KIZIL]

On Mon, Dec 3, 2018, 11:41 PM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg at gmail.com wrote:

> 2018-12-03 21:28 GMT+01:00, Martin Vignali <martin.vignali at gmail.com>:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 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
> >> > >
> >>
> >
> > This patch looks wrong to me.
> >
> > It's seems like removing features for personal opinion.
>
> This is a lie.
> (I don't care.)
>
> > Ticket 7589, mention an incorrect build redistribution.
> >
> > So, right way to fix this ticket, will be (for people interesting in this
> > kind of thing)
> > to indicate, what need to be done, in order to have a licence compliant
> > build.
>
> Again: What message would this send to future license violators?
>
> Since you are throwing accusations:
> Please remind me how many license violations you have worked on.
>
> Carl Eugen
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel


Newtek representative says, they will remove the binary from SDK right away
and will stop distributing as its current state with passing their
apologies, while accepting their mistake.

I do not understand that how it is being decided to remove a complete work
against a non-free distribution.

I suggest to not to take immediate harsh actions without fully discussing
the side effects.

Personally, I do not believe they break the license on purpose. If so, they
wouldn't announce it. They would fo as some others do, by trying hide. So
personally, I think removal of  code is a very strong decision for this
kind of revertible violation, as Newtek also gets in response asap.