←back to thread

1125 points CrankyBear | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
vsgherzi ◴[] No.45892348[source]
I understand ffmpeg being angry at the workload but this is how it is with large open source projects. Ffmpeg has no obligation to fix any of this. Open source is a gift and is provided as is. If Google demanded a fix I could see this being an issue. As it is right now it just seems like a bad look. If they wanted compensation then they should change the model, there's nothing wrong with that. Google found a bug, they reported it. If it's a valid bug then it's a valid bug end of story. Software owes it to its users to be secure, but again it's up to the maintainers if they also believe that. Maybe this pushes Google to make an alternative, which I'd be excited for.
replies(4): >>45892463 #>>45892522 #>>45892581 #>>45895390 #
themafia ◴[] No.45892522[source]
> Google found a bug

That does not impact their business or their operations in any way whatsoever.

> If it's a valid bug then it's a valid bug end of story.

This isn't a binary. It's why CVEs have a whole sordid scoring system to go along with them.

> Software owes it to its users to be secure

ffmpeg owes me nothing. I haven't paid them a dime.

replies(3): >>45892654 #>>45892702 #>>45895021 #
shevy-java ◴[] No.45892702[source]
> ffmpeg owes me nothing. I haven't paid them a dime.

That is true. At the same time Google also does not owe the ffmpeg devs anything either. It applies both ways. The whole "pay us or we won't fix this" makes no sense.

replies(1): >>45892914 #
1. themafia ◴[] No.45892914[source]
> Google also does not owe the ffmpeg devs anything either.

Then they can stop reporting bugs with their assinine one size fits all "policy." It's unwelcome and unnecessary.

> It applies both ways.

The difference is I do not presume things upon the ffmpeg developers. I just use their software.

> The whole "pay us or we won't fix this" makes no sense.

Pay us or stop reporting obscure bugs in unused codecs found using "AI" scanning, or at least, if you do, then change your disclosure policy for those "bugs." That's the actual argument and is far more reasonable.

replies(2): >>45893996 #>>45896496 #
2. rat9988 ◴[] No.45893996[source]
I for one welcome it. I want to know if there are some vulnerabilities in the software I use.
3. milkey_mouse ◴[] No.45896496[source]
> Then they can stop reporting bugs with their asinine one size fits all "policy." It's unwelcome and unnecessary.

Right, they should just post the 0days on their blog.