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

Diego Biurrun diego
Tue Jun 9 23:36:40 CEST 2009

On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 02:21:23PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> 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:
> >>> 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.

Yes, I see that you are convinced of that.

> >>> 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.

Thanks for repeating what I have attempted to say multiple times

This discussion is going nowhere.  Let's waste our time on more
productive avenues.


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list