[FFmpeg-user] Next Release

Reindl Harald h.reindl at thelounge.net
Tue Jan 26 21:49:30 EET 2021

Am 26.01.21 um 20:47 schrieb Paul B Mahol:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 8:44 PM Phil Rhodes via ffmpeg-user <
> ffmpeg-user at ffmpeg.org> wrote:
>>   On Tuesday, 26 January 2021, 19:10:38 GMT, Chris Angelico <
>> rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Do you realise how toxic you make the FFMPEG community look?
>> To answer your last point first, either they don't know how toxic it
>> looks, or they don't care. It's been like this for so long that if it's an
>> elaborate trolling attempt it's a very, very determined one. Either way
>> it's horrible and I regret that it exists, but nobody in authority seems
>> willing to do anything about it.
>> As regards the issue of release versions, the way I usually do it is to
>> download a statically-built executable. As a windows person I'd invariably
>> do this anyway; I have built ffmpeg on windows but it's a real hurt in the
>> hiney. There are usually executables available which presumably represent
>> "current git head" as it existed at some point in time. It's anecdotal, but
>> I've never had a problem with these. You can update at will, or keep your
>> known-good setup together for the price of simply including that executable
>> file.
>> There are, as I understand it, a number of potential legal problems with
>> distributing that, since it is quite difficult to obtain a set of source
>> files that are known to be symmetrical with the executable you have. It's
>> even more difficult to prove that any particular set of source files are
>> symmetrical with any particular executable. Still, it seems to be more or
>> less tolerated on the basis that as a purely practical matter, anyone who
>> wants the source to ffmpeg would download it anyway.
> Yes, if you want to use ffmpeg you need to pay for each patent it
> implements

are you drunken or trolling by intention?

More information about the ffmpeg-user mailing list