[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] the future of libamr

Baptiste Coudurier baptiste.coudurier
Tue Jun 9 23:21:23 CEST 2009

On 6/9/2009 1:17 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 12:11:58PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>> 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 could say the same, we interpret the facts differently.

Can you please point at facts that go in favor of your argument ? Sorry
if I missed them, because HE-AAC does not support your argument, but mine.

Your argument is: "It (keeping amr-wb encoding feature) costs us the
opportunity that somebody might get motivated to implement AMR-WB
encoding support."

>>>>>> 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".
> I understand your point perfectly, but it does not apply.  Even when I
> communicate with violators as "we", I am still an individual.  An
> individual in representation of a group, but still an individual.
> As such, it is my credibility that is on the line.

If you speak on behalf of FFmpeg, I think FFmpeg credibility is on the
line, as such, you can include yourself in the entity, but even when
doing that, I think you should say "we" or "us" or maybe say "FFmpeg".

This is what you said:
"It also costs me some credibility when dealing with license violators."

Notice the "me". I said:
"me" ? You mean FFmpeg

I don't think your credibility alone is involved here but FFmpeg's.


Baptiste COUDURIER                              GnuPG Key Id: 0x5C1ABAAA
Key fingerprint                 8D77134D20CC9220201FC5DB0AC9325C5C1ABAAA
FFmpeg maintainer                                  http://www.ffmpeg.org

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list