Rémi Denis-Courmont (12023-08-08): > I have made some preposterous statements in my dark past, but I am pretty > sure > that I didn't make any statement to that effect, no. > > I did assert that there "are dozens of people, ostensibly including [you], > that depend on FFmpeg being ""Serious OpenSource TM"" in some way, for their > livelihood, and millions for their computer use" in response to NG's argument > that FFmpeg should be turned into a fun experimental research project, and > that people who wanted to keep FFmpeg what he calls a "serious open-source > trademark" should just fork.
Not “turned into”, but restored. FFmpeg *was* a fun experimental research project, and it was the reason it became so great: developers then could try things that were not tried elsewhere, they were free to take risks, to make mistakes and fix them. And the, during the second half of 2000s decade, people like you took more and more place, people who demanded absolute stability and rejected all risks whatsoever. They started giving shit to Michael, then project leader, trying to force him and everybody else to behave, according to their own standards. They wasted the time of one of the most skilled hackers in the field of multimedia having him perform tasks a few baseline technicians could do. And when it did not go as fast as they wanted, they staged a coup, with all the terrible consequences we know. Let me state it plain and clear: The fact that people and companies choose to depend on FFmpeg for their livelihood is their own problem, and their own only, it does not create ANY OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER for FFmpeg. It is even true for sponsors. They can gift FFmpeg hardware or money or hosting, they can hope that FFmpeg will progress to be even more useful to them, but FFmpeg has NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER to honor that hope. (Except for tit-for-tat programs with contractual rules, like GSoC.) If a sponsor tried to leverage their sponsoring to dictate the direction of the project, threatening to withhold it unless they get their way, then we should realize that sponsor is a dangerous asshole and sever all ties with them immediately. > No. You are taking for granted that SDR belongs in FFmpeg in the first place, > and that's exactly what people disagree with. And you are taking for granted that it does not belongs in FFmpeg. But what you refuse to realize is that it is only an opinion, shared by you and a few “people”, backed by zero actual arguments. As such, your opinion is worthy of very little consideration, a lot much less than the opposition opinion that is actually backed by the enthusiasm of users. -- Nicolas George _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
