Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Reintroducing FFmpeg to Debian
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:44:35 -0500
Joe Neal <vlvtelvis@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> When this happened I scoured the net, including mailing lists from both
> projects to try and figure out what had happened. The overwhelming
> evidence based on mailing list posts, blog posts, forum discussions and
> pretty much everywhere else I could look all led me to the overwhelming
> conclusion of what I stated before. This is the only time I've ever
> seen anything to the contrary stated and I looked good and hard for
> another side of the story, as have many other people.
Part of the reason for this is that the people around libav decided
that they didn't want to participate in the mudslinging. Only the most
blatant lies were refuted and all the name calling was mostly ignored.
In hindsight that was a mistake.
> I still don't know who is in the right, but at least you've put an end
> to the weirdness where only one side of the story existed on the net
> and there was just conspicuous silence on the other.
I'd like to give here a short account on what happend before the split,
even though this not the right place. I think i should write up something
longer after my vacations and put it somewhere online.
Before 2011 there were quite a few issues within FFmpeg. Most of those
revolved around Michael Niedermayer playing by his own set of rules
and ignoring the advise of everyone else. His behaviour has resulted
in quite a bit of ... anger.. to put it mildly. A few people left because
of him. Heck, even i wanted to leave everything that was related to
FFmpeg in any way, even though all i did was keeping the server running
and was not involved in the development or anything else at all.
At that time there was some discussion going on between some of the
most active developers of that time, what to do about Michael and
the issues he causes. There were several attempts to solve the whole
issue toghether with Michael, but after all failed, it was decided
that it would be the best to proceed without Michael as head developer.
In the days before the "coup d'état" we tried to get hold of all the
developers that we thought were still active. Most of the people we
contacted agreed with us, some of them signed the mail i linked earlier.
There were some who said they didn't care and wanted to stay out of the
whole issue and also some that we could not reach in time. Having most
of the active base of FFmpeg agreeing with us, we thought that the
dethroning of Michael would be a quick and painless thing. We couldn't
have been more wrong...
The rest, as they say is history...
> I'm pretty sure it's not my place to ask this, but shouldn't Sam Hocevar
> weigh in on this issues? As former ffmpeg maintainer and DPL it seems
> like he'd be uniquely qualified speak on what's in the best interest of
I think you are confusing a few things. Sam was, as far as i know,
never active in FFmpeg. He was (and i think still is) a big figure
in VLC development.
PS: It has been brought to my attention that claiming "i have bought
the mphq server" is a bit misleading. The money that bought the
server was donation money. What i did was handling the buying using
my contacts i had to HP back then, to get a quite decent machine
to one third of the price we would have paid otherwise. Ie, i handled
the suffling of the money and the legal paperwork.
Attila Kinali
--
It is upon moral qualities that a society is ultimately founded. All
the prosperity and technological sophistication in the world is of no
use without that foundation.
-- Miss Matheson, The Diamond Age, Neil Stephenson
Reply to: