On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 11:32 AM Nicolas George via ffmpeg-devel <[email protected]> wrote: > > michaelni (HE12025-10-13): > > Also you would have to convince the community, that we want this. iam > > not sure how the community would think about it, but for example you > > could offer to donate a percentage of your profits from this to > > ffmpeg. > > Hi. I procrastinated replying about soliciting sponsorships, but if it > looks like that I cannot anymore. Also, it must not be discussed in the > dark of an obscure pull request, it needs to be seen on the > mailing-list. > > If this is how us soliciting sponsorships looks like, then we must > absolutely not do it. > > “Pay us and we will consider ignoring the qualms we have about the > licensing issues of your contribution” is already very bad by itself. It > is even badder when we realize it is only one step from “pay us and we > will consider ignoring the qualms we have about the poor quality of your > code”. > > Ideally, accepting contributions should be judged on the merits of the > contribution itself: is the code beautiful? does it bring practical > benefit to our users? Out of necessity we have to add: will this be > properly maintained? But no more. > > We can solicit sponsorship, sure, but even the appearance that the money > is a tit-for-tat for getting one's code into the project, getting > excellent publicity and future maintenance work for cheap, would be > extremely detrimental. >
I agree. There's is definitely a discussion to be had about the reasons FFmpeg accepts a third-party lib. There are now many libs being proposed into FFmpeg as marketing exercises. I also think we should encourage people to maintain and more importantly test their own repositories of FFmpeg with their open source or proprietary libs (on Forgejo?). Regards, Kieran Kunhya _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
