[FFmpeg-devel] Snow documentation effort

Michael Niedermayer michaelni at gmx.at
Sun Feb 26 03:17:50 CET 2012

On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 12:00:27PM +0100, Benjamin Larsson wrote:
> On 02/25/2012 07:58 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:17:25PM +0100, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> >>[...]
> >>Well, it would be easier if you'd see that as a chance for the
> >>foundation to prove its value.
> >Do you think its value would exceed the value of a ffmpeg foundation
> >created by us with the goal to support free multimedia and our users
> >compared to the system that the current ffmtech uses?
> >And i cant help but have to point out that to the best of my knowledge
> >ffmtech can actually not legally support libav and its directors
> >should be personally liable for all money that was used for libav.
> >
> >Directors must act within the best interrests of the foundation, also
> >they cannot participate (aka even be in the same (virtual) room)
> >during votes that are about matters in which they have some personal
> >interrest that differs from the goals of the foundation. Thus no
> >libav developer could ever have supported a vote that gave money to
> >libav.
> >Thats just my uneducated feeling, iam not a lawyer.
> This is from the foundation bylaws:
> 1. To coordinate and promote the development, production,
> distribution, and use of Free and
> Open Source Software useful for recording, converting, and playing
> audio and video, in-
> cluding the program known as FFmpeg and the software library known
> as libavcodec (the
> “Software”).

thanks for quoting the bylaws

let me "quote" reality:
funded development and review is done on closed mailing lists where
FFmpeg developers have been banned (is that the promote development
and free part ?)

funded development is done against a 1 year outdated fork that lacks
many bugfixes and features. Rendering testing that is done during
development partly inapplicable to main FFmpeg.

The people who do the extra work to get the funded development into
main FFmpeg, debug and maintain it there are doing so enirely
volunteerly and get no cent.

If that doesnt qualify as the foundation using its funds with maximum
force against FFmpeg then i wonder what else they could do that would
be more hostile?

> Thus I don't agree with what you wrote above.
> >Now in addition everything in the foundation is kept a closely guarded
> >secret. How much money was spend on what and who did participate in
> >the votes ?
> Well the no webpage situation i bad. We will publish spendings on it

> but I see no point in disclosing the result in the vote.

What point does voting for the directors have when the community cant
check if their director actually did what he says he would.


Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Asymptotically faster algorithms should always be preferred if you have
asymptotical amounts of data
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20120226/aeae7b70/attachment.asc>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list