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

[Benoit Fouet]

Diego Biurrun wrote :
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 10:24:29PM +0200, Benoit Fouet wrote:
>   
>> Diego Biurrun wrote :
>>     
>>> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 01:03:16PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> On 6/8/2009 12:37 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 12:02:00PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>>>> On 6/8/2009 3:28 AM, Ramiro Polla wrote:
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> In my win32 builds[0] I don't include libamr. The only people that
>>>>>>> bother to contact me asking specifically for amr encoding are
>>>>>>> commercial. If they spent their effort on an open source encoder that
>>>>>>> would be much better. So, I'm for this removal...
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> Or they can stop using FFmpeg.
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Your point being?
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> My point being that we lost one user, which we could have easily kept.
>>>>         
>>> Sorry, but this is nonsense.  There is absolutely no indication that
>>> they stopped using FFmpeg because AMR support was not available.  And
>>> what else would they use?  There is no alternative that comes even close
>>> to FFmpeg's feature set.
>>>       
>> if one of the feature they really need is AMR-WB encoding, they will.
>>     
>
> I'd rather think they would stick to the stable release instead.
>
>   

If I had to have the feature, I'd surely do that, yes (or keep a build
integrating it around).
Nonetheless, it is to be used in combination with video formats (in 3gp
files, mostly), and it is good if people using it can also get the
latest bug fixes, security fixes, and so on.

>>> Also, the primary goal of this project is not to get as many users as
>>> possible at any cost.  Otherwise we would have included a DLL loader a
>>> long time ago.
>>>       
>> as that was already mentioned earlier, there is no real cost, as the
>> encoder is already in place.
>>     
>
> The cost is credibility when dealing with license violators among other
> things.
>
>   

this is the real problem... people using it to create a software...
I must admit that as long as people creating software won't read the
licenses thingy, that will remain...

Ben