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

[Diego Biurrun]

On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 03:43:34PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> On 6/8/2009 2:17 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 02:08:17PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> >> Hell, no, that's exactly the point. Nobody will "reimplement" something
> >> that works because of FFmpeg's own interest, except one FFmpeg
> >> developper or one developper from GSOC which was paid thanks to FFmpeg.
> >>
> >> Now one company gratefully funded HE-AAC after the project was started
> >> and left over from GSOC, that's great and I wish there would be more,
> >> however it's not done yet, I hope it will be soon, but I don't think
> >> removing libfaad did all help on this, it's still there in the tree and
> >> hopefully it is otherwise you couldn't decode HE-AAC.
> > 
> > You are confused.  libfaad was never removed.  Robert asked to keep it.
> > HE-AAC was not a leftover from GSoC, regular AAC decoding was.  HE-AAC
> > is being sponsored despite the fact that libfaad decodes it perfectly.
> > Robert was also funded to get the SoC regular AAC decoder into FFmpeg.
> 
> I don't think I'm not confused.

Are you sure?  Even after rereading that sentence? ;-p

> However you seem to be missing my point.
> Yes it wasn't removed and because it was _not_, it tends to show that
> it's not necessary nor helping to _remove_ it. That's an argument in
> favor of _not_ removing libamr wrapper for WB encoding.

I disagree, let's leave it at that.

> >> I think many developers could be and IMHO should be representative of
> >> FFmpeg credibility. In case you didn't get it, I'll make it clear this
> >> time: replace "myself" by "us". Thanks for your understanding.
> > 
> > You seem to misunderstand what I am talking about.  When I deal with
> > license violators, the credibility of other individual devs is not on
> > the line.  It's just me personally and the project as a whole.
> 
> I completely understand what you are talking about, and IMHO issues
> should be dealt in the name of FFmpeg, the project, if you wish you
> include yourself and I wish to be included as well, I think you should
> use "us".

You don't understand what I am trying to say here.  This is not at all
about me using "us" or "me".  I speak in the name of FFmpeg (using "us"
and "we") when dealing with license violators.  Let me try again to get
my point across.  Hopefully with more success this time around.

When I contact company X, then I do so speaking as an individual in the
name of a project.  Other individuals, say Mike Melanson or Benjamin
Larsson, are not directly involved, only indirectly because they, too,
belong to the FFmpeg project.

So when I have a credibility problem, the FFmpeg project also has a
credibility problem, but neither Benjamin nor Mike have a direct
credibility problem.  They are not in direct contact, their names are
not directly on the line.

Diego