- cross-posted to:
- linux@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- linux@programming.dev
You must log in or # to comment.
Most people are unaware that even open source projects have licenses: Permissive license, Strong Copyleft, Weak Copyleft etc.
Some resources:
And all those licenses rely on copyright and IP law.
And all those global faceless multicorps requiring you to agree to their 200 page eula rely on that foss licensed goodness, without ever contributing an iota back to the source.
I just wish each video decoder manufacturer didn’t feel the need to create their own API that isn’t supported by anything.
It feels counter productive when everyone relies on ffmpeg and there are no proprietary secrets left to protect. Just agree on an open standard that saves time and effort for all companies using it while getting tons of goodwill and positive cosmic vibes and maybe even revenue.
Does this accomplish anything? Was anyone actually relying on this? I’d say the company was just doing it just to publish it, but I’ve known developers who would certainly use the public repo as the primary copy.
I believe it does. Weakly reciprocal license like LGPL is not equivalent as a permissive license like Apache. I see two main things on the top of my head:
- This ensure that no one can license wash ffmpg and e.g. use rockchip’s repo to distribute their own private product based on ffmpeg without publishing their changes
- It ensures proper attribution of the work, which can have an impact on the developer’s careers and ffmpeg as a whole.
On top of this, it really should not be complicated to license this code properly (unless rockchip wants to allow point 1, which is illegal)
