[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] the future of libamr

[Diego Biurrun]

On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 01:38:26PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 01:22:20PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> >> Diego Biurrun wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 12:45:15PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> >>>> Certainly not. IMHO, for libamr case, it's already there and keeping it
> >>>> does not cost anything.
> >>> It costs us the opportunity that somebody might get motivated to
> >>> implement AMR-WB encoding support.
> >> While I can see how this can be true, in practice I believe this has
> >> proven to not have many results outside of FFmpeg.
> >> Libswscale was reimplemented by Kostya, AAC decoder by GSOC then Robert,
> >> now Alex, but this was still driven by FFmpeg and animated which I
> >> reimplemented myself.
> > 
> > I disagree.  HE-AAC is being sponsored by a Finnish company, you did
> > quite a bit a bit of implementation work for your company, there are
> > more examples..
> 
> You disagree with what exactly ? That reimplementation was done inside
> FFmpeg team ? I'm sorry but I really believe this is true. Most (maybe
> all) reimplementations were done by someone from FFmpeg team, or from
> GSOC which was explicitely wanted and driven by FFmpeg team.

I'm saying that implementations and reimplementations have been funded
by outside sources.  If the coder being funded was a part of the FFmpeg
team or not is irrelevant.

> >>> It also costs me some credibility when dealing with license violators.
> >>> We do not like companies distributing nonfree builds of FFmpeg, but we
> >>> keep the means to create such builds.
> >> "me" ? You mean FFmpeg
> > 
> > I mean both FFmpeg as a project as well as myself when dealing with
> > license violators.
> 
> It would more adequate to say "us" here then I think.

Correct.  It costs both myself as representative of FFmpeg credibility
as well as FFmpeg as a project.

Diego