[FFmpeg-devel] Files crashing FFmpeg

[Diego Biurrun]

On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 12:09:12PM -0500, compn wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:30:09 +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> >On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 04:44:45AM -0800, Jason Garrett-Glaser wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:01 AM, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 11:39:01PM -0800, Jason Garrett-Glaser wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 6:09 AM, compn <tempn at twmi.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 21:54:29 -0800, Mike Melanson wrote:
> >> >> >>Benjamin Larsson wrote:
> >> >> >>> This list http://tranquillity.ath.cx/ffmpeg_crashfiles.txt contains
> >> >> >>> links to files that crashes a FFmpeg version from 2007. Can anyone come
> >> >> >>> up with a good tool so we can run through and check all these files ?
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> This list was donated by Picsearch.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Do we have the project budget to send them a nice fruit basket for the
> >> >> >>holidays? This is some good stuff. It would be nice if some other
> >> >> >>organizations that automatically process millions of diverse files with
> >> >> >>FFmpeg could throw some problem files our way.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > it would be nice of youtube to send some changes back our way too...
> >> >>
> >> >> From a talk I had with the Google engineer who runs the Youtube
> >> >> encoding chain a few days ago, it seems Google's official policy is
> >> >> that they're not allowed to publicly admit that they use open source
> >> >> products such as ffmpeg (!!).
> >> >
> >> > What is the reason he gave for this nonsensical attitude?  Google uses
> >> > open source all over in other places and employs a multitude of central
> >> > open source devs...
> >> 
> >> There were a number of excuses he tried to make for this.  (all quotes
> >> aren't actual quotes)
> >> 
> >> The primary one was that of patents, with regards to x264: "we
> >> shouldn't publicly state we are using x264 because then people might
> >> go after you for patent reasons."  There is some glimpse of reason to
> >> this, as x264 is a rather small project that hasn't gotten takedown
> >> threats just yet.
> >
> >The only case where this ever happened was libdts.  But the entity to go
> >after x264 would be the MPEG-LA.  They have not shown this kind of
> >behavior in the past 10 years or so, I do not expect they will in the
> >future.
> 
> i wonder what happened to libvp62 ....

That was copyright infringement.

Diego