[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/developer: require transparency about sponshorships.

[Paul B Mahol]

On 1/12/19, Nicolas George <george at nsup.org> wrote:
> Hendrik Leppkes (12019-01-11):
>> Its everyones right to keep their finances private. Would I be forced
>> to disclose my hourly wages and then determine how long I worked on a
>> patch, just because I did it during my day job? Thats not going to
>> happen.
>>
>> To take a line from your post:
>> Are you against privacy?
>
> I grant you these were cheap theatricals. But to answer your question
> seriously: I am against absolute unconditional privacy, yes. Some things
> deserve privacy, some things do not; I personally believe that economic
> matters rather fall in the second category.
>
> In the particular instance you are evoking, the commit message could
> just say "developed as part my regular job at $company", I consider that
> enough disclosure for the purpose. And I wonder why you would want to
> keep that much hidden.
>
>> Patches should generally be considered on their own merit.
>
> That is true. And patches should be reviewed and discussed until they
> are of top quality. You know as well as me that it is not what is
> happening: there are too many patches and too little time available from
> competent developers; as a result, some code of mediocre quality have
> been pushed, and some committers have explicitly stated they would
> bypass technical objections to their patches. And now it appears that
> was the result of sponsorships...

Citation needed.