On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
Hi Thilo,
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgm...@mail.de>
wrote:
From the users perspective I don't see why we don't have wrappers for a
commercial codec.
Right, that's the core thing.
Why doesn't FFmpeg "promote" the use of this closed-source software?
Maybe it's because some of us contribute to this project not just out of
utility ("I can do XYZ with it"), but out of some sort of idealism ("I like
opensource"), trying to promote the common good of free software, kind of
like volunteering in some local community thing.
That's fine, I even understand and relate to that. However, as a user, I
utterly don't care about it, as a I user I want to use the best tool
available today, let it be free or not, open source or not. If you are
making it harder for me because of your _idealism_, well... please don't.
For these contributors, "promoting" closed-source software would run
directly contra to this ideal.
This is hardly a technical argument.
As an analogy, imagine that the Linux kernel started including wrappers to
promote the use of custom binary graphics device drivers. That would run
directly contra to the ideals that the project stands for. You personally
may not care so much, I understand that much, but please do see that some
other contributors might care far more.
You can build a module without rebuilding the whole kernel, ffmpeg is not
that flexible...
Obviously a separate repo for non-free is an option, but do we really need
a separate repo for closed source components because some people don't
like closed source out of idealism? I really feel that the religous
arguments dominate this discussion.
Regards,
Marton
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
