Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Plugins architecture

[Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake@gmail.com>]

On August 11, 2025 6:10:52 AM PDT, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 09:22:26PM +0900, Lynne wrote:
> > Option 3 - we have an official source plugin interface, free for
> >            everyone to use, with license limitations. All source plugins
> >            The list of source plugins would be maintained by us, and
> >            policing of the list for violations (including using
> >            dlopen() to workaround licensing) would be left to us.
> >            The list of such plugins would be maintained by us.
> 
> Id like to point out that testing for dlopen() is a matter of
> "git grep dlopen" after the "git merge" of teh plugins
> Similarly we can require any specific license or contract text in a
> plugin and can verify that automatically. (similar to fate-source)
> Thus turning a non compliant plugin into a contract violation

If we were to forbid dlopen-ing proprietary code we have several plugins we'd therefore have to remove: decklink, anything using cuda, almost any windows stuff (but we could use the excuse that it's part of the OS or that it works with Wine), probably more

Jacob
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".