←back to thread

FFmpeg to Google: Fund us or stop sending bugs

(thenewstack.io)
1124 points CrankyBear | 3 comments | 11 Nov 25 18:32 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
phkahler ◴[11 Nov 25 19:41 UTC] No.45891830[source]▶
From TFA this was telling:

Thus, as Mark Atwood, an open source policy expert, pointed out on Twitter, he had to keep telling Amazon to not do things that would mess up FFmpeg because, he had to keep explaining to his bosses that “They are not a vendor, there is no NDA, we have no leverage, your VP has refused to help fund them, and they could kill three major product lines tomorrow with an email. So, stop, and listen to me … ”

I agree with the headline here. If Google can pay someone to find bugs, they can pay someone to fix them. How many time have managers said "Don't come to me with problems, come with solutions"

replies(8): >>45891966 #>>45891973 #>>45893060 #>>45893320 #>>45896629 #>>45898338 #>>45902990 #>>45906281 #
skrebbel ◴[11 Nov 25 19:52 UTC] No.45891966[source]▶
How could ffmpeg maintainers kill three major AWS product lines with an email?
replies(5): >>45891984 #>>45892034 #>>45892354 #>>45895260 #>>45899217 #
zxspectrum1982 ◴[11 Nov 25 19:54 UTC] No.45891984[source]▶
Easy: ffmpeg discontinues or relicenses some ffmpeg functionality that AWS depends on for those product alines and AWS is screwed. I've seen that happen in other open source projects.
replies(3): >>45892090 #>>45892103 #>>45894363 #
NewsaHackO ◴[11 Nov 25 20:04 UTC] No.45892103[source]▶
But if it gets relicensed, they would still be able to use the current version. Amazon definitely would be able to fund an independent fork.
replies(6): >>45892164 #>>45892171 #>>45892460 #>>45894578 #>>45894811 #>>45900051 #
wewtyflakes ◴[11 Nov 25 20:09 UTC] No.45892164{3}[source]▶
Sounds like it would be a lot of churn for nothing; if they can fund a fork, then they could fund the original project, no?
replies(5): >>45892193 #>>45892545 #>>45894433 #>>45895761 #>>45901951 #
cortesoft ◴[11 Nov 25 20:42 UTC] No.45892545{4}[source]▶
They COULD, but history has shown they would rather start and maintain their own fork.

It might not make sense morally, but it makes total sense from a business perspective… if they are going to pay for the development, they are going to want to maintain control.

replies(2): >>45892610 #>>45895069 #
edoceo ◴[11 Nov 25 20:48 UTC] No.45892610{5}[source]▶
If they want that level of control, reimburse for all the prior development too. - ie: buy that business.

As it stands, they're just abusing someone's gift.

Like jerks.

replies(2): >>45893243 #>>45894018 #
1. LexiMax ◴[11 Nov 25 22:54 UTC] No.45894018{6}[source]▶
I always like to point out that "Open Source" was a deliberate watering-down of the moralizing messaging of Free Software to try and sell businesses on the benefits of developing software in the open.

> We realized it was time to dump the confrontational attitude that has been associated with "free software" in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that motivated Netscape.

https://web.archive.org/web/20021001164015/http://www.openso...

replies(1): >>45896787 #
2. KingMob ◴[12 Nov 25 05:55 UTC] No.45896787[source]▶
I like FS, but it's always had kind of nebulous morality, though. It lumps in humans with companies, which cannot have morals, under the blanket term "users".

This is the same tortured logic as Citizens United and Santa Clara Co vs Southern Pacific Railroad, but applied to FS freedoms instead of corporate personhood and the 1st Amendment.

I like the FS' freedoms, but I favor economic justice more, and existing FS licenses don't support that well in the 21st c. This is why we get articles like this every month about deep-pocketed corporate free riders.

replies(1): >>45897275 #
3. spookie ◴[12 Nov 25 07:26 UTC] No.45897275[source]▶
Agree in some ways. Still, discussing the nitty gritty is superfluous, the important underlying message you are making is more existential.

Open source software is critical infrastructure at this point. Maintainers should be helped out, at least by their largest users. If free riding continues, and maintainers' burden becomes too large, supply chain attacks are bound to happen.