Re: EULA vs BSL,EULA vs BSL
(please CC me, as i'm not subscribed to the list)
On 2017-11-20 22:20, Walter Landry wrote:
>>
>> now i wonder, are these header files licensed under the EULA or under
>> the BSL?
>
> Are the headers sufficient for development, or does it require some
> compiled libraries? If so, it does not matter if the headers are
> free, since the libraries will be required for any development anyway.
>
good point, with another fun answer:
in order to successfully use the entire thing, indeed a non-free shared
library is required.
the fun part is, that this library is *not* part of the SDK.
the library is part of another piece of non-free software. however, this
other piece (including the library) is not protected by the same EULA,
and it doesn't forbid the distribution (it doesn't explicitely allow it
either; so i might need to check that with upstream as well).
in any case, the SDK comes with a thin wrapper (BSL-licensed) that
dlopen()s the library.
so to answer your question: afaict, all the files required to *develop*
software are licensed under the BSL (but protected by "the EULA").
(and to *use* it you need their properietary library, drivers, firmware
and hardware).
@pabs, regarding alternative hardware: this doesn't help me much given
the couple of Decklink cards lying around in my office.
the question however is really targetted at what I am allows to do with
files that include a BSL boilerplate but are hidden behind a EULA that
forbids distribution.
oh, btw:
upstream only introduced that EULA last year or so.
some versions of the headers in question are already shipped in Debian.
most likely these versions pre-date the surrection of the EULA-wall (so
they're distributed under the BSL in good faith).
vcmxfg
IOhannes
Reply to: