[FFmpeg-devel] Snow documentation effort
benjamin at southpole.se
Sun Feb 26 23:32:48 CET 2012
On 02/26/2012 03:17 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> 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
>>> 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
> 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 funded development is done against a 1 year outdated fork that lacks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?
As this is how you say you perceive reality I can't change that. But
even if the foundation would use funds in the way you describe it I
don't see how it would be against the bylaws.
More information about the ffmpeg-devel