←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: 0.001s | source
Show context
bogwog ◴[11 Nov 25 20:00 UTC] No.45892050[source]▶
Is it time for FFmpeg to relicense as AGPL? That'd be fun to witness.
replies(4): >>45892335 #>>45892612 #>>45892688 #>>45895756 #
tpmoney ◴[12 Nov 25 02:30 UTC] No.45895756[source]▶
To be clear, what does relicensing to AGPL do here? Does the AGPL include licensing terms that forbid filing bug reports without also including code patches? Or does it just make ffmpeg that much less appealing to projects and cut off the steady stream of contributions that it has gotten from google since 2009? https://git.ffmpeg.org/gitweb/ffmpeg.git/search/HEAD?pg=3;s=...
replies(1): >>45896135 #
pabs3 ◴[12 Nov 25 03:35 UTC] No.45896135[source]▶
AGPL is banned from many BigCorps IIRC.
replies(1): >>45896209 #
1. tpmoney ◴[12 Nov 25 03:50 UTC] No.45896209[source]▶
Right, but how is that a benefit here? The bug report was a valid report, ffmpeg is objectively better for it having been filed. Google contributes to ffmpeg on a regular basis according to the git history. They also buy consulting services from the ffmpeg maintainers according to the maintainer's own website. If ffmpeg was banned from Google, all of that would probably stop.

So not only would ffmpeg have multiple uncovered vulnerabilities, they would have less contributions and patches and less money for funding the maintainers. And for what? To satisfy the unfocused and mistaken rage of the peanut gallery online?

replies(2): >>45896418 #>>45900657 #
2. pabs3 ◴[12 Nov 25 04:40 UTC] No.45896418[source]▶
Spite I guess.
3. bogwog ◴[12 Nov 25 14:30 UTC] No.45900657[source]▶
> To satisfy the unfocused and mistaken rage of the peanut gallery online?

That's only one possible benefit.

Another could be to gain leverage on big tech companies via dual licensing. If Google, Amazon, etc want to continue using FFmpeg without forking, they could do so by paying for the old LGPL license. It would likely be cheaper than maintaining a fork. They'd also have to release their changes anyways due to LGPL if they ever ship it client side.

So the incentive to contribute rather than fork would remain, and the only difference is that they have to pay a licensing fee.

Ofc this is probably just a fantasy. Relicensing FFmpeg like this probably isn't easy or possible.