←back to thread

FFmpeg to Google: Fund us or stop sending bugs

(thenewstack.io)
1125 points CrankyBear | 9 comments | 11 Nov 25 18:32 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
woodruffw ◴[11 Nov 25 19:16 UTC] No.45891521[source]▶
I’m an open source maintainer, so I empathize with the sentiment that large companies appear to produce labor for unpaid maintainers by disclosing security issues. But appearance is operative: a security issue is something that I (as the maintainer) would need to fix regardless of who reports it, or would otherwise need to accept the reputational hit that comes with not triaging security reports. That’s sometimes perfectly fine (it’s okay for projects to decide that security isn’t a priority!), but you can’t have it both ways.
replies(13): >>45891613 #>>45891749 #>>45891930 #>>45892032 #>>45892263 #>>45892941 #>>45892989 #>>45894805 #>>45896179 #>>45897077 #>>45897316 #>>45898926 #>>45900786 #
Msurrow ◴[11 Nov 25 19:22 UTC] No.45891613[source]▶
My takeaway from the article was not that the report was a problem, but a change in approach from Google that they’d disclose publicly after X days, regardless of if the project had a chance to fix it.

To me its okay to “demand” from a for profit company (eg google) to fix an issue fast. Because they have ressources. But to “demand” that an oss project fix something with a certain (possibly tight) timeframe.. well I’m sure you better than me, that that’s not who volunteering works

replies(5): >>45891699 #>>45891755 #>>45891844 #>>45893088 #>>45898343 #
vadansky ◴[11 Nov 25 19:28 UTC] No.45891699[source]▶
On the other hand as an ffmpeg user do you care? Are you okay not being told a tool you're using has a vulnerability in it because the devs don't have time to fix it? I mean someone could already be using the vulnerability regardless of what Google does.
replies(9): >>45891756 #>>45891762 #>>45891975 #>>45892022 #>>45892359 #>>45892632 #>>45893251 #>>45895054 #>>45900572 #
nemothekid ◴[11 Nov 25 20:25 UTC] No.45892359{3}[source]▶
>Are you okay not being told a tool you're using has a vulnerability in it because the devs don't have time to fix it?

Yes? It's in the license

>NO WARRANTY

>15. BECAUSE THE LIBRARY IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE LIBRARY, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE LIBRARY "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

If I really care, I can submit a patch or pay someone to. The ffmpeg devs don't owe me anything.

replies(3): >>45892821 #>>45893079 #>>45902705 #
1. janalsncm ◴[11 Nov 25 21:24 UTC] No.45893079{4}[source]▶
All the license means is that I can’t sue them. It doesn’t mean I have to like it.

Just because software makes no guarantees about being safe doesn’t mean I want it to be unsafe.

replies(2): >>45893221 #>>45897360 #
2. gowld ◴[11 Nov 25 21:37 UTC] No.45893221[source]▶
If the software makes no guarantees about being safe, then you should assume it is unsafe.
replies(4): >>45893353 #>>45893809 #>>45894429 #>>45898155 #
3. rmunn ◴[11 Nov 25 21:49 UTC] No.45893353[source]▶
Have you ever used a piece of software that DID make guarantees about being safe?

Every software I've ever used had a "NO WARRANTY" clause of some kind in the license. Whether an open-source license or a EULA. Every single one. Except, perhaps, for public-domain software that explicitly had no license, but even "licenses" like CC0 explicitly include "Affirmer offers the Work as-is and makes no representations or warranties of any kind concerning the Work ..."

replies(1): >>45894972 #
4. janalsncm ◴[11 Nov 25 22:32 UTC] No.45893809[source]▶
Anyone who has seen how the software is sausaged knows that. Security flaws will happen, no matter what the lawyers put in the license.

And still, we live in a society. We have to use software, bugs or not.

5. HDThoreaun ◴[11 Nov 25 23:40 UTC] No.45894429[source]▶
not possible to guarantee safety
6. ndriscoll ◴[12 Nov 25 00:42 UTC] No.45894972{3}[source]▶
I don't know what our contract terms were for security issues, but I've certainly worked on a product where we had 5 figure penalties for any processing errors or any failures of our system to perform its actions by certain times of day. You can absolutely have these things in a contract if you pay for it, and mass market software that you pay for likely also has some implied merchantability depending on jurisdiction.

But yes things you get for free have no guarantees and there should be no expectations put in the gift giver beyond not being actively intentionally malicious.

replies(1): >>45895424 #
7. rmunn ◴[12 Nov 25 01:40 UTC] No.45895424{4}[source]▶
Point. As part of a negotiated contract, some companies might indeed put in guarantees of software quality; I've never worked in the nuclear industry or any other industries where that would be required, so my perspective was a little skewed. But all mass-distributed software I've ever seen or heard of, free or not, has that "no warranty" clause, and only individual contracts are exceptions.

Also, "depending on jurisdiction" is a good point as well. I'd forgotten how often I've seen things like "Offer not valid in the state of Delaware/California/wherever" or "If you live in Tennessee, this part of the contract is preempted by state law". (All states here are pulled out of a hat and used for examples only, I'm not thinking of any real laws).

8. samus ◴[12 Nov 25 07:43 UTC] No.45897360[source]▶
Sorry to put it this bluntly, but you are not going to get what you want unless you do it yourself or you can convince, pay, browbeat, or threaten somebody to provide it for you.
9. pjc50 ◴[12 Nov 25 09:33 UTC] No.45898155[source]▶
OK, then you can't decode videos.