3 ms·

Am i the only one who is amazed that the library which is supporting a huge share of all video playing on all linux machines appears to be pretty much written b

Am i the only one who is amazed that the library which is supporting a huge share of all video playing on all linux machines appears to be pretty much written by one person?

Sir_Cmpwn 11y ago
https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/graphs/contributors https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/graphs/contributors 659 contributors. There are 14 people with over 1000 commits, 34 with over a hundred. 4 people with over 100K additions/deletions.
pjc50 11y ago
Free software relies disproportionally on a small number of people doing it for ideological reasons. It doesn't help that video codec work is particularly difficult and usually patent-encumbered. I'm still not sure whether ffmpeg is entirely non-patent infringing.
- AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
  FFmpeg has some thoughts on this... Q: Does FFmpeg use patented algorithms? A: We do not know, we are not lawyers so we are not qualified to answer this. Also we have never read patents to implement any part of FFmpeg, so even if we were qualified we could not answer it as we do not know what is patented. Furthermore the sheer number of software patents makes it impossible to read them all so no one (lawyer or not) could answer such a question with a definite no, those who do lie. What we do know is that various standards FFmpeg supports contain vague hints that any conforming implementation might be subject to some patent rights in some jurisdictions Source: https://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html https://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    >number of software patents makes it impossible to read them all // IPC/ECLA (and probably whatever the USPTO use, USPC [IIRC]) allow for quite fine classification so it's not necessary to "read them all". The point is in there somewhere, and valid, but this phrasing seems just a little too flippant - to the point of deception. I don't doubt that there is a patent attorney/researcher/engineer in a company somewhere sufficiently on top of their game to say truthfully they don't infringe on any patents with their primary technology, patents valid in their jurisdiction, but it would certainly be a rare thing.
    - DasIch 11y ago
      Given the number of software patents and the sheer stupidity of quite a few of them, every project of significant size probably violates at least one.
    - snogglethorpe 11y ago
      I don't think it's flippant at all, indeed, my impression is that it's widely considered the only practical approach to dealing with software patents if you're not an enormous company that can devote significant resources to patent research. Unfortunately software patents, as implemented in the U.S. especially, are a morass full of landmines and predators, and offering little of value. By and large the patent holders (both legitimate and illegitimate) tend to stick to trying to extract money from rich players (which is mostly the large companies that do have the resources to care about patents) and/or making patent-exchange deals to protect themselves. Unless you have a lot of money to throw around, it's a game you can't win, and any attempt to deal with the system at face-value is a pointless waste of scarce resources.
      - the_why_of_y 11y ago
        Indeed. "Ignoring Patents", Mark A. Lemley http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=999961 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=999961 What's going on here? The answer, I think, is quite simple: both researchers and companies in component industries simply ignore patents. Virtually everyone does it. They do it at all stages of endeavor. From the perspective of an outsider to the patent system, this is a remarkable fact. And yet it may be what prevents the patent system from crushing innovation in component industries like IT. Ignoring patents, then, may be a "workaround" that allows the innovation system to function in the face of overbroad patent protection.

Am i the only one who is amazed that the library which is supporting a huge share of all video playing on all linux machines appears to be pretty much written by one person?

Sir_Cmpwn 11y ago

https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/graphs/contributors https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/graphs/contributors 659 contributors. There are 14 people with over 1000 commits, 34 with over a hundred. 4 people with over 100K additions/deletions.

pjc50 11y ago

Free software relies disproportionally on a small number of people doing it for ideological reasons. It doesn't help that video codec work is particularly difficult and usually patent-encumbered. I'm still not sure whether ffmpeg is entirely non-patent infringing.

AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
FFmpeg has some thoughts on this... Q: Does FFmpeg use patented algorithms? A: We do not know, we are not lawyers so we are not qualified to answer this. Also we have never read patents to implement any part of FFmpeg, so even if we were qualified we could not answer it as we do not know what is patented. Furthermore the sheer number of software patents makes it impossible to read them all so no one (lawyer or not) could answer such a question with a definite no, those who do lie. What we do know is that various standards FFmpeg supports contain vague hints that any conforming implementation might be subject to some patent rights in some jurisdictions Source: https://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html https://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  >number of software patents makes it impossible to read them all // IPC/ECLA (and probably whatever the USPTO use, USPC [IIRC]) allow for quite fine classification so it's not necessary to "read them all". The point is in there somewhere, and valid, but this phrasing seems just a little too flippant - to the point of deception. I don't doubt that there is a patent attorney/researcher/engineer in a company somewhere sufficiently on top of their game to say truthfully they don't infringe on any patents with their primary technology, patents valid in their jurisdiction, but it would certainly be a rare thing.
  - DasIch 11y ago
    Given the number of software patents and the sheer stupidity of quite a few of them, every project of significant size probably violates at least one.
  - snogglethorpe 11y ago
    I don't think it's flippant at all, indeed, my impression is that it's widely considered the only practical approach to dealing with software patents if you're not an enormous company that can devote significant resources to patent research. Unfortunately software patents, as implemented in the U.S. especially, are a morass full of landmines and predators, and offering little of value. By and large the patent holders (both legitimate and illegitimate) tend to stick to trying to extract money from rich players (which is mostly the large companies that do have the resources to care about patents) and/or making patent-exchange deals to protect themselves. Unless you have a lot of money to throw around, it's a game you can't win, and any attempt to deal with the system at face-value is a pointless waste of scarce resources.
    - the_why_of_y 11y ago
      Indeed. "Ignoring Patents", Mark A. Lemley http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=999961 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=999961 What's going on here? The answer, I think, is quite simple: both researchers and companies in component industries simply ignore patents. Virtually everyone does it. They do it at all stages of endeavor. From the perspective of an outsider to the patent system, this is a remarkable fact. And yet it may be what prevents the patent system from crushing innovation in component industries like IT. Ignoring patents, then, may be a "workaround" that allows the innovation system to function in the face of overbroad patent protection.