Do we need to move x265enc to -ugly?

[Seungha Yang-2]

Hello all,

I have a question on license of x265enc in -bad.
The x265 seems to GPL2 licensed but x265enc is located in -bad.
Is this allowed?

Regards
_______________________________________________
gstreamer-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/gstreamer-devel

[Nicolas Dufresne-5]

Le mercredi 21 novembre 2018 à 12:33 +0900, Seungha Yang a écrit :
> Hello all,
>
> I have a question on license of x265enc in -bad.
> The x265 seems to GPL2 licensed but x265enc is located in -bad.
> Is this allowed?

-bad means these element are unstable (properties can change). There is
no repo for unstable element that has a problematic licence and
unstable API. But yes, this element belongs to -ugly for it's next
move.

>
> Regards
> _______________________________________________
> gstreamer-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/gstreamer-devel

_______________________________________________
gstreamer-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/gstreamer-devel

[Baby Octopus]

This question has been raised quite a number of times. There is a general
misunderstanding of bad plugins
There are essentially 4 categories
1.a Good distributable
1.b Good non-distributable
2.a Bad distributable
2.b Bad non distributable

Currently 1.a is called good, 1.b is called ugly, 2.a & 2.b collectively
called bad
I personally prefer 4 categories instead of existing 3

Also note that non distributable is not only due to GPL, but also due to
code which might violate certain patents

I'm not a lawyer but this is what I understand :)

~BO




--
Sent from: http://gstreamer-devel.966125.n4.nabble.com/
_______________________________________________
gstreamer-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/gstreamer-devel