←back to thread

1125 points CrankyBear | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bogwog ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] No.45896135[source]
AGPL is banned from many BigCorps IIRC.
replies(1): >>45896209 #
tpmoney ◴[] 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 #
1. pabs3 ◴[] No.45896418{3}[source]
Spite I guess.