Hi. Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel (HE12025-10-16): > I like that this would result in a steady income stream. > I think its a good idea, and iam happy to provide companies with > extended security support on old releases.
I think it is naïve for nerds like us to expect being able to interact with companies and coming out ahead. They would sic their lawyers on us to make sure they have warranties that we deliver what they want. > I certainly can relate to the "no releases" design, and like this too > But i think FFmpeg is too big to have no releases There are big projects that have no releases. They have coined “rolling releases” to spin it as a positive thing. > I mean, We have companies who want releases (cant say who and what > exactly because its non public info) > These companies will pay for releases, so someone will continue making > releases. Its better if that someone is us, better for the quality of > releases and better for our income Why should we care if the releases are good if we do not slap our names on them? The core of the issue is that FFmpeg is a Libre Software project, not an Open Source project: it is before anything else the work of people in their free time to make beautiful code, not the work of a company that is planning to eventually turn a profit. This is important also for our own freedom to experiment, to write code differently, to take the risk of failing. What you propose effectively turns FFmpeg into a company in all but legal status. That would be detrimental to our freedom to experiment, and eventually to the quality of the code. Not counting being halfway between two status, i.e. getting the problems of both. Regards, -- Nicolas George _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
