←back to thread

1125 points CrankyBear | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.235s | source
Show context
phkahler ◴[] 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 ◴[] No.45891966[source]
How could ffmpeg maintainers kill three major AWS product lines with an email?
replies(5): >>45891984 #>>45892034 #>>45892354 #>>45895260 #>>45899217 #
zxspectrum1982 ◴[] 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 #
astrange ◴[] No.45894363[source]
ffmpeg cannot relicense anything because it doesn't own anything. The contributors own the license to their code.
replies(3): >>45894596 #>>45894733 #>>45897289 #
1. fweimer ◴[] No.45897289[source]
They can switch from LGPLv2.1 to GPLv2 or GPLv3 for future development because the license has an explicit provision for that.