3 ms·

Yes. But they don’t upstream. Why would they?

• justahuman74 1y ago
  Great, they can fix the bugs being filed by another part of their company
  • Ferret7446 1y ago
    So would you rather Google have a secure ffmpeg while us plebian individual users continue to have an insecure ffmpeg?
    • GaryBluto 1y ago
      It's frustrating to me how many people are siding with FFmpeg here considering how unprofessional and generally asshole-ish they are being. I feel that this is mostly a kneejerk reaction to AI and Google in general, with people coming up with arguments to support their reaction after already forming an opinion.
      • NoGravitas 1y ago
        It's a volunteer project, they have no requirement to be 'professional'. That's basically the root of the whole issue. A hobby project is not a product, and its developers are not vendors. Free software is not a supply chain.
        • Dylan16807 1y ago
          The word "unprofessional" here is muddying the comment more than it helps. Let's just saying they're being asshole-ish, which is a problem for volunteer projects just as much as non-volunteer ones. The ffmpeg twitter sucks.
        • joshuamorton 1y ago
          > A hobby project is not a product, and its developers are not vendors But it's developers do offer paid consulting as ffmpeg maintainers, which Google does pay for.
      • adastra22 1y ago
        Because we've worked as open-source maintainers and experienced the same frustrating asshole-ish behavior from companies before.
  • warkdarrior 1y ago
    They probably fixed in the internal version.
• cataflam 1y ago
  Don't they? https://git.ffmpeg.org/gitweb/ffmpeg.git?a=search&h=HEAD&st=author&s=%40google.com https://git.ffmpeg.org/gitweb/ffmpeg.git?a=search&h=HEAD&st=...