[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] the future of libamr
Tue Jun 9 21:11:58 CEST 2009
On 6/9/2009 5:47 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 03:43:34PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>> On 6/8/2009 2:17 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 02:08:17PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>>>> Hell, no, that's exactly the point. Nobody will "reimplement" something
>>>> that works because of FFmpeg's own interest, except one FFmpeg
>>>> developper or one developper from GSOC which was paid thanks to FFmpeg.
>>>> Now one company gratefully funded HE-AAC after the project was started
>>>> and left over from GSOC, that's great and I wish there would be more,
>>>> however it's not done yet, I hope it will be soon, but I don't think
>>>> removing libfaad did all help on this, it's still there in the tree and
>>>> hopefully it is otherwise you couldn't decode HE-AAC.
>>> You are confused. libfaad was never removed. Robert asked to keep it.
>>> HE-AAC was not a leftover from GSoC, regular AAC decoding was. HE-AAC
>>> is being sponsored despite the fact that libfaad decodes it perfectly.
>>> Robert was also funded to get the SoC regular AAC decoder into FFmpeg.
>> However you seem to be missing my point.
>> Yes it wasn't removed and because it was _not_, it tends to show that
>> it's not necessary nor helping to _remove_ it. That's an argument in
>> favor of _not_ removing libamr wrapper for WB encoding.
> I disagree, let's leave it at that.
Being against the _facts_ is weird IMHO.
>>>> I think many developers could be and IMHO should be representative of
>>>> FFmpeg credibility. In case you didn't get it, I'll make it clear this
>>>> time: replace "myself" by "us". Thanks for your understanding.
>>> You seem to misunderstand what I am talking about. When I deal with
>>> license violators, the credibility of other individual devs is not on
>>> the line. It's just me personally and the project as a whole.
>> I completely understand what you are talking about, and IMHO issues
>> should be dealt in the name of FFmpeg, the project, if you wish you
>> include yourself and I wish to be included as well, I think you should
>> use "us".
> You don't understand what I am trying to say here. This is not at all
> about me using "us" or "me". I speak in the name of FFmpeg (using "us"
> and "we") when dealing with license violators. Let me try again to get
> my point across. Hopefully with more success this time around.
> When I contact company X, then I do so speaking as an individual in the
> name of a project. Other individuals, say Mike Melanson or Benjamin
> Larsson, are not directly involved, only indirectly because they, too,
> belong to the FFmpeg project.
> So when I have a credibility problem, the FFmpeg project also has a
> credibility problem, but neither Benjamin nor Mike have a direct
> credibility problem. They are not in direct contact, their names are
> not directly on the line.
You don't understand what I am trying to say here. This is about "you"
using "I" instead of "we". This is not about "you" having a credibility
problem if that is so, it is about "FFmpeg".
When you are speaking on behalf of FFmpeg, I think you should always use
"we" and "us".
Baptiste COUDURIER GnuPG Key Id: 0x5C1ABAAA
Key fingerprint 8D77134D20CC9220201FC5DB0AC9325C5C1ABAAA
FFmpeg maintainer http://www.ffmpeg.org
More information about the ffmpeg-devel