3 ms·
> ffmpeg owes me nothing. I haven't paid them a dime. That is true. At the same time Google also does not owe the ffmpeg devs anything either. It applies both
by shevy-java 11mo ago
> ffmpeg owes me nothing. I haven't paid them a dime.
That is true. At the same time Google also does not owe the ffmpeg devs anything either. It applies both ways. The whole "pay us or we won't fix this" makes no sense.
- themafia 11mo ago> Google also does not owe the ffmpeg devs anything either. Then they can stop reporting bugs with their assinine one size fits all "policy." It's unwelcome and unnecessary. > It applies both ways. The difference is I do not presume things upon the ffmpeg developers. I just use their software. > The whole "pay us or we won't fix this" makes no sense. Pay us or stop reporting obscure bugs in unused codecs found using "AI" scanning, or at least, if you do, then change your disclosure policy for those "bugs." That's the actual argument and is far more reasonable.
- rat9988 11mo agoI for one welcome it. I want to know if there are some vulnerabilities in the software I use.
- milkey_mouse 11mo ago> Then they can stop reporting bugs with their asinine one size fits all "policy." It's unwelcome and unnecessary. Right, they should just post the 0days on their blog.