4 ms·

Let me get this right … FFmpeg open sourced their software for all to use without having to pay for it. This was a choice they made. Then on their own web sit

Let me get this right … FFmpeg open sourced their software for all to use without having to pay for it. This was a choice they made. Then on their own web site, they only accept 1-time donations and state “If you find FFmpeg useful, you are welcome to contribute by donating.” [0] Then someone comes along to donate (and play by the rules they’ve set), and they publicly complain about it? Some Advice: if you want to monetize Fortune 500 use, don’t open source it. Or at least, create a strategy that allows you to monetize it (like what Sidekiq has done). [0] https://ffmpeg.org/download.html https://ffmpeg.org/download.html

joedwin 3y ago
Microsoft Requested Urgent support on a bug from FFmpeg.
- alberth 3y ago
  Just because someone asks you to do something (who you have no obligation to help), doesn’t mean you must help. And if FFmpeg was so passionate to get a support contract from Microsoft, that should have been a requirement first before they provided the support. Once again, FFmpeg set their own rules. First with free software and now with free support. Life lesson: Don’t provide free software and free support, and then complain about your own doing.
- supriyo-biswas 3y ago
  They can simply force all users to file bugs with technical details OR get a support contract for general questions and troubleshooting, which would be the best way of forcing companies into contracts.
  - kierank 3y ago
    (author of the post on X) We cannot tell volunteers to not do something (i.e help Microsoft) in the same way we cannot tell volunteers to do something.
- Zetobal 3y ago
  It wasn't even a bug... they forgot to read the changelog.
  - ahahahahah 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - Zetobal 3y ago
      They changed how a feature works and they communicated it via changelog I don't know what they should have done more. They have no service contract with ms.
      - ahahahahah 3y ago
        I love how you just continue the lie. I linked to the changelog. Feel free to quote from there where "they communicated it via changelog". That's not even getting into how it's a shitty argument anyway, especially with as shitty of a changelog as ffmpeg has.
throw_a_grenade 3y ago
They also didn't commit to any timeline for responding in their own ticket tracker and certainly didn't let randos from the Internet set the priorities of the tickets. So IDK, but it sounds to me like there's some reasonable space for an agreement between the parties to be negotiated.
gary_0 3y ago
A donation implies that no strings are attached. If Microsoft wants ffmpeg to do something for money, they have to make a business arrangement. They can't just throw some coins at ffmpeg's feet and then start making demands.
- planetsulu 3y ago
  According to ffmpeg MS offered a payment of a few thousand dollars for resolving the issue: https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178805704888726 https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178805704888726
  - kierank 3y ago
    (author of the post on X) To clarify, Microsoft didn't offer a one-time payment to fix any bug. A volunteer explained for free that a command line option had changed between FFmpeg versions. Microsoft offered a one-off payment instead of a support contract.

joedwin 3y ago

Microsoft Requested Urgent support on a bug from FFmpeg.

alberth 3y ago
Just because someone asks you to do something (who you have no obligation to help), doesn’t mean you must help. And if FFmpeg was so passionate to get a support contract from Microsoft, that should have been a requirement first before they provided the support. Once again, FFmpeg set their own rules. First with free software and now with free support. Life lesson: Don’t provide free software and free support, and then complain about your own doing.
supriyo-biswas 3y ago
They can simply force all users to file bugs with technical details OR get a support contract for general questions and troubleshooting, which would be the best way of forcing companies into contracts.
- kierank 3y ago
  (author of the post on X) We cannot tell volunteers to not do something (i.e help Microsoft) in the same way we cannot tell volunteers to do something.
Zetobal 3y ago
It wasn't even a bug... they forgot to read the changelog.
- ahahahahah 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Zetobal 3y ago
    They changed how a feature works and they communicated it via changelog I don't know what they should have done more. They have no service contract with ms.
    - ahahahahah 3y ago
      I love how you just continue the lie. I linked to the changelog. Feel free to quote from there where "they communicated it via changelog". That's not even getting into how it's a shitty argument anyway, especially with as shitty of a changelog as ffmpeg has.

throw_a_grenade 3y ago

They also didn't commit to any timeline for responding in their own ticket tracker and certainly didn't let randos from the Internet set the priorities of the tickets. So IDK, but it sounds to me like there's some reasonable space for an agreement between the parties to be negotiated.

gary_0 3y ago

A donation implies that no strings are attached. If Microsoft wants ffmpeg to do something for money, they have to make a business arrangement. They can't just throw some coins at ffmpeg's feet and then start making demands.

planetsulu 3y ago
According to ffmpeg MS offered a payment of a few thousand dollars for resolving the issue: https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178805704888726 https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178805704888726
- kierank 3y ago
  (author of the post on X) To clarify, Microsoft didn't offer a one-time payment to fix any bug. A volunteer explained for free that a command line option had changed between FFmpeg versions. Microsoft offered a one-off payment instead of a support contract.