[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/developer: require transparency about sponshorships.

[Nicolas George]

Hendrik Leppkes (12019-01-11):
> Its everyones right to keep their finances private. Would I be forced
> to disclose my hourly wages and then determine how long I worked on a
> patch, just because I did it during my day job? Thats not going to
> happen.
> 
> To take a line from your post:
> Are you against privacy?

I grant you these were cheap theatricals. But to answer your question
seriously: I am against absolute unconditional privacy, yes. Some things
deserve privacy, some things do not; I personally believe that economic
matters rather fall in the second category.

In the particular instance you are evoking, the commit message could
just say "developed as part my regular job at $company", I consider that
enough disclosure for the purpose. And I wonder why you would want to
keep that much hidden.

> Patches should generally be considered on their own merit.

That is true. And patches should be reviewed and discussed until they
are of top quality. You know as well as me that it is not what is
happening: there are too many patches and too little time available from
competent developers; as a result, some code of mediocre quality have
been pushed, and some committers have explicitly stated they would
bypass technical objections to their patches. And now it appears that
was the result of sponsorships...

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20190112/7abc7bd3/attachment.sig>