Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit(tanersener.medium.com) |
Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit(tanersener.medium.com) |
The real reason. Greedy bastards, and the risk of your business being set on fire by greedy bastards, even if they don't have a right to anything - they can still threaten to waste your time and money and offer a shakedown instead.
I've never used FFmpegKit (I've mostly just used the command-line, or indirectly via yt-dlp and Handbrake) but just hearing about it now, the maintainer sounds like an awesome person who really went above and beyond to support free software, so hooray for them! I bet it was useful for thousands of other projects, and those people are all grateful too.
They're not obligated to respond, and they enjoy the fear, uncertainty and doubt their non-response creates.
The process for reporting to them for sales is also horrible. Uploading excel spreadsheets to an ASP.NET backend that's barely holding together. It's minimal effort from them to leverage all possible legal action over you. Horrible.
And "we paid for something and want ROI" are not damages. There's no legal right to profit from an investment. You gotta use it or lose it.
Patent owners don't even have the right to make the invention themselves (because it may infringe on other patents).
So your problem is fairly foundational.
Steam, YouTube, Instagram, Patreon, BandCamp, commissions... The creator economy is booming and is on the rise. I've seen some metrics say it's got a 40% CAGR.
MrBeast, PsychicPebbles, VivziePop, Joel Haver - all made brands for themselves. The currency is personal brand. Most of the creators I follow these days are indies, not big studios.
But even excepting that, you can always work for a big studio if you're not interested in the additional headache of working for yourself and building a personal brand. Gaming, film, and music are huge and there are companies hiring in these spaces.
So they go after ffmpeg's US-based users/customers instead.
Thanks to Taner Sener for putting in all the effort! I guess most technical people shudder at the mere thought of dealing with all the legal matters.
Open source is beautiful and broken at the same time.
If you do it because you want it for your stuff, cool.
If you do it because you feel obliged to appease "the community" who takes for granted that you support them, that's a symptom of the broken model that is open source.
Has echos of the Linux for Apple Silicon guy last week who used to be a Wii modder, tired of the support tickets from entitled pirates, moved to a niche Linux distro, and discovered a similar sense of entitlement in the issue tracker.
I really hope the "significant sum" he paid was out of donations to the project, and not his own money. Even then, it sounds like he's poured a ton of his time and energy into the project over the years, so even if it was all donated money, he certainly could have kept it for himself without any moral/ethical concerns.
If that’s the case, software engineers relying on it should learn how to build FFmpeg from source and handle platform-specific challenges (especially on Android). The loss of the overall community support doesn’t seem that significant, right?
That said, whether someone uses FFmpeg-kit or builds FFmpeg manually, the legal risks remain the same. If they don’t understand codec patents (like x264 and MPEG-LA) or GPL/LGPL obligations, they could face lawsuits or be forced to release their code under GPL. The real issue isn’t FFmpeg-kit—it’s whether developers actually understand these legal implications.
Jk, thank you for your work!
The project had become a time sink, I get it. But that's exactly why OSS is a "What You See Is What You Get".
Normally I'd encourage any OSS maintainer in this position to just announce their intentions and let the community (as small as it might be) decide to either inherit maintenance and development of the project, or let it languish. I don't see any reason to close the repos so dramatically, depriving potential future readers of reaching the source code and improving upon it, as is the spirit of OSS.
The project had also become an actual cost, getting to the point of hiring contractors to make releases and please users (who would most probably have been unwilling to pay for that themselves, as my experience tells me most FOSS users are just freeloaders with no intention at all of supporting the project in any way or means). Well, what can I say, this conversation appears from time to time in HN. OSS maintainers need to have that special kind of ability to say "No" or even "I don't care" because otherwise the project (and its users) tend to absorb the author's attention, goodwill, wallet, and enthusiasm. It's very healthy, as a maintainer, to be able to ruthlessly point to the License file whenever someone complains and even _requires_ attention. The "Provided on an AS-IS BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND" phrase is wonderful.
I understand the author. The feeling of attachment and goodwill, the desire to show the highest attention to detail and quality support for a project is always there. We all experience it. But it's important to remember at all times that OSS is just an act of generosity to the universe, it cannot become a self-induced hell.
Why #2: legal concerns around potential litigations.
Yeah, I know it myself too: distributing FFmpeg binaries can be a legal risk if some codecs were enabled in the build.
Still no reason to shut everything down... or is it? My gut instinct for this is to "just" (I know, not a trivial change, but not astronomically complicated either) change to a "provide your own FFmpeg executable, please" model. Then, proceed with abandoning the project, as per the previous point.
Or just move everything to an anonymous Chinese Git provider.. and forget about receiving legal threats in there (just half-joking!)
Farewell FFmpegKit. You will be missed.
Any software you write, or even run, may or may not infringe some half-assed patent, and you will never know until the troll wielding it and deliberately trying to keep it hidden, pounces on you, usually demanding money, threatening to use their government-backed exclusive rights to their "invention" so you either pay what they ask, do what they ask, or they sue you for infringement and sometimes win. Larger companies have large troves of patents and they really don't care what's in them, they care that they have lots and you don't, and they can use them to crush you in court unless you give in to whatever they demand.
Some companies you know of may already have given in, and may already be paying licensing fees to patent holders. It sickens me.
I'm not suggesting, I'm telling you there is an entity, formerly MPEG-LA, now Via Licensing Corp, who maintain a pool of patents that supposedly claim exclusive rights to aspects of some of the video codecs implemented in FFMPEG.
If they hear you're making money, and you use video codecs -- ffmpeg's implementation or otherwise -- they may come to shake you down. They get to pick and choose who they accuse of patent infringement. They can do it at any time (before the expiry of the last patent in the pool). They can do it at the point where they'll have maximum leverage over you. Software patents give them that opportunity.
Should they get in touch with you, your response should be made in consultation with qualified lawyers.
> Q: Bottom line: Should I be worried about patent issues if I use FFmpeg?
> A: Are you a private user working with FFmpeg for your own personal purposes? If so, there is remarkably little reason to be concerned. Are you using FFmpeg in a commercial software product? Read on to the next question...
> Q: Is it perfectly alright to incorporate the whole FFmpeg core into my own commercial product?
> A: You might have a problem here. There have been cases where companies have used FFmpeg in their products. These companies found out that once you start trying to make money from patented technologies, the owners of the patents will come after their licensing fees. Notably, MPEG LA is vigilant and diligent about collecting for MPEG-related technologies.
'To promote the progress of science (total human knowledge) and skilled technical artisans.'
Arguably, given the pace of technical innovation, and the clear effects on independent artisans, there shouldn't be patents at all. Copyright should also be re-evaluated, and if it still exists (it's so very easy to copy anything these days), and targeted towards maximum cultural diffusion of expressions of ideas within pop-culture cycles (20 years sounds LONG for such a timescale).
Trade Marks, however, those are consumer protection and product reputation issues and call for registered (pay a fee to the government) marks that renew as long as paid.
That phrase had a fairly specific meaning back when it was written, and they seem to be hewing to it.
It does not match today's colloquial understanding for sure, but that doesn't mean they are ignoring it.
If we care about outcomes, the only thing to do is get the law changed so companies like that can't exist. Not because they are banned, but because there's no business model there.
It doesn’t make them evil…just bureaucratic.
Normally you can't win a lawsuit without proving damages. My overarching point is that buying IP with no intent to use it does not create damages when someone infringes it. And relicensing IP is not "using" the IP to me - you either use it, or lose it. Unless of course, you're the original author (and by author, I mean the humans, not businesses that paid them)
The point of IP laws is to protect creators and encourage development. When the resulting markets do the opposite you have to ask if the design of those laws is flawed, and I really believe that.
If I come up with a brilliant new compression algorithm, but don't have the software development skills to make a robust production implementation, what difference does it make whether I hire someone to write that production implementation, license my algorithm to someone who writes that production implementation, or sell my patent rights to someone who writes that production implementation (or licenses my algorithm to someone else who does that)? Heck, given that software is fluffy abstract stuff rather than physical goods, would you consider selling a program to count, or is it only someone who makes a hardware device that uses the algorithm who gets to count?
1) You patent something, but don't do anything with it except enforce the patent.
2) You patent something, but the only thing you do with it is license others to use it, potentially hiring someone else to manage the licenses but you retain ownership.
3) You patent something, you sell the patent to someone else to do 2)
Cases 1 and 3 have significant negative effects on both technology and society that the law should prevent. Case 2 covers your brilliant new invention but don't bring it to market yourself and is fine.
The key notion here is that you cannot sell intellectual property. It's ephemeral. You can license it and create all sorts of creative license terms, but once you're dead or the timeline of exclusive rights runs out, or you personally stop "using" it (or all companies stop using it), the patent effectively expires because you can't claim damages if you or your license holders have not seen any negative impacts.
In a perfect world, "defensive" patent strategies and rent-seeking by middlemen would be prevented by construction. This maximizes the incentive to innovate and share ideas, instead of bottling them up. If you want true, exclusive rights to something, don't share it in a patent.
The patent "business" is just garbage. A company full of lawyers collecting rents on mathematical algorithms does not "promote the progress of science and useful arts".
I think there is still a place for patents, but most of the time they seem to just stifle innovation and increase the cost of everything.
How are 2 and 3 meaningfully different as far as anyone outside is concerned though? If I own a field and I'm not a farmer, no-one cares much whether I rent it out to someone else to farm on or sell it to (either for some proportion of their income or for a straight up flat fee). Economically it's all the same - you can rent something or you can buy it funded with a loan, and your cash flows will be more or less identical.
The other direct-sell platforms you referenced have already been flooded by people bulk-creating AI knock-offs. The giant slop hose has already won the race to the bottom making it nearly impossible for people that aren’t already established to get started. It’s most obvious in stock photo markets, but in music, some of the creation tools specifically advertise generating output to avoid triggering copyright scanners.
And no, you can’t just go grab a job at the big studios because a) a lot of them are using, or assuming they’ll soon be able to effectively use, the same AI tools that everyone else is based in other peoples labor and eliminating FTEs, b) since so many commercial artists have been displaced by tech companies essentially selling their work, everybody— including former freelancers and indies— is shooting for the same dwindling set of jobs, and c) nobody in those industries is leaving their jobs because they know it might be the end of their career if they do.
I don’t expect you to understand the markets outside of your area of expertise, but I would appreciate your being less patronizing while you attempt to explain my career to me.
It's enormously disingenuous to compare the rise of hucksters like this to artists or creative professionals.
Further - gaming has just seen the greatest layoffs in history, as all the major studios and publishers attempt to reduce costs and leverage 'AI', since the games as a service model is winner takes all. Independent film is all but dead since the franchise film has taken the box office. And music, are you kidding? Spotify has so cucked musicians that it's actively replacing them with AI generated mush, trained on their work, and the economic disparity is so great there's nothing they can do about it - https://www.fastcompany.com/91170296/spotify-ai-music
The only naive “Kumbaya, my lord” perspective around here is that the current “creative” tooling the corporate tech sector is building is positive for humanity’s creative landscape, and they didn’t just take what used to be the largest and healthiest independent creative marketplace humanity has ever experienced and hand it directly to corporate entities and low-effort, low-value bullshit “content” hucksters.
Ah there's the magic word! You shouldn't have to be a "brand"... the people you listed are not who I would call "independent".
Capitalism is the root of evil to all this. Sorry.
France is also a party to the European Patent Convention, which specifically states that programs for computers are not patentable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_Eur...
Software patents are mainly a US-only thing.
Pardon my French, but get the stick out of your eye and lighten up a little bit about this.
Not everything should be "kumbaya, my lord" neighborhood arts and crafts, string beads, hillbilly woodworking, or stay at home mom Etsy finds. You can enjoy things that have their own distinctive brand identity. Where the artist becomes inseparable from the art.
Web comics, their own brands. Fan fiction authors, their own brands and followings. YouTubers and Twitch streamers, even the smallest of the small - duh. Brand. Bloggers. Columnists. Photographers. Even illustrators have their own brands. They don't want to be generic fungible goods. They want to be unique. That's what it is to be an artist and the name of the artist carries recognition, accolade, and following.
So sorry there's an element of marketing and self promotion involved, but that's the name of the business for everyone. If you don't like it, you can work for somebody else and follow their brand guidelines and direction.
because they have to be.
> Not everything should be "kumbaya, my lord" neighborhood arts and crafts, string beads, hillbilly woodworking, or stay at home mom Etsy finds.
False dichotomy.
The commenter is not bemoaning that it is impossible to make a living as a creative (though it is difficult); they are bemoaning that the mechanisms of enforcing, in law, that what is yours is yours requires a substantial amount of capital and legal expertise. If Ubisoft, for example, were to steal the IP of an indie developer and integrate it into their own game, is there a realistic path for that developer to take to get the dividends of their creation from Ubisoft? Yes, technically. But how much money, time, and work will it take? And how can it possibly be fair, when Ubisoft has an entire legal division at their disposal who's job it is to make sure they don't have to pay, and the indie developer has to take time away from their job to do all of the same things?
This is sort of a half-joke, But honestly I would not have a problem with software patents if they had to be filed in this manner. The problem I have is with patents that are "existing device (on a computer)" as if putting it on a computer was novel.
I feel that patents are a critical legal device. I think having economic exploitation protection for your novel mechanism is an important thing. However there are enough people exploiting the patent system itself that it does need some reform. However I am uncertain what that reform should be. A stricter interpretation of novel? a tighter interpretation of infringement? Honestly I am worried about the law of unintended consequences here.
Sure. But if it's software: fuck off and use copyright. If people copy you, you're injured, you can show they copied you and obtain damages/injunctions. But if you want monopoly control over an idea, no matter who else comes up with it... that's rent-seeking.
Patents don't offer monopolies for fun, they're supposed to advance society by offering incentives for disclosure. The amount of incentive, and the likelyhood of non-disclosure was very different in the past, it certainly doesn't fit for computer software, so soceity shouldn't continue to offer that pact for computer software.
I don't know how I can be clearer about that. It's literally not allowed, and you think the first one you've looked at has somehow escaped the very direct statement that programs for computers are not patentable subject matter
Perhaps if you'll cite any of those French patents (I note you alluded to "over 300" but managed not to cite any), we can get started on the cancellations
Article L611-10:
... 2. Ne sont pas considérées comme des inventions au sens du premier alinéa du présent article notamment :
a) Les découvertes ainsi que les théories scientifiques et les méthodes mathématiques ;
b) Les créations esthétiques ;
c) Les plans, principes et méthodes dans l'exercice d'activités intellectuelles, en matière de jeu ou dans le domaine des activités économiques, ainsi que les programmes d'ordinateurs ;
d) Les présentations d'informations.
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI0000...
DeepL translation:
2. The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of the first paragraph of this Article
a) discoveries as well as scientific theories and mathematical methods ;
b) aesthetic creations
c) plans, principles and methods for carrying out intellectual activities, games or economic activities, as well as computer programs;
d) Information presentations.
https://web.archive.org/web/20031013020204/http://progfree.o...
The complete list of patents in the MPEG-LA for H.264 is here: https://www.via-la.com/wp-content/uploads/Final-February-1-2...
And yes, it is carefully written to not imply it's patenting a computer program, and yet try to get the maximum "I'll sneak this past the examiners because I really want to patent computer programs" without actually breaching their direct rules about what are and aren't computer programs (and what is and isn't a technical solution, and what is and isn't novel).
So if you want to say "looks like a software patent", the EPO would disagree directly with you, as they literally followed their rules saying don't do that - but the adversary is also trying their best to get software-implementation-fucking patent claims despite those rules. I'd like the EPO to be even stricter, and reject even more claims.
So... software is patentable in the EU, at least in some circumstances. That's the end result, even if technically it's not allowed.
Unless these patents in question don't actually cover video codec software, which it seems they do?
The ultimate test, of course, is if these patents would stand up in court. But it seems no one has challenged them? Which indicates to me that either a) people believes they would hold up in court, and so they don't try to challenge them, or b) no one is sure, and is afraid to find out. Either outcome has the end result of "software can be patented in the EU sometimes".
jcranmer is trying to convince you that there is no difference between these two positions, because, technically, in both there is at least some stealing.
But they're not the same. Let's go back to the top-level question. Why is a US-based wrapper for a French library choosing to pre-emptively delete all binaries it has ever produced and completely shut down, out of fear of unstated legal actions, while the French library has been in active development for 25 years, and -- if software patents weren't explicitly illegal there -- would likely have been sued to oblivion by the same people who menace the USA.
I believe software patents are no more legal in the US than they are in the EU, and this is based on SCOTUS precedent in the US that makes the legal argument for software patents very sketchy. In a just world, that would mean that pretty much all of the MPEG-LA's patent portfolio should be worthless. But I suspect that in both the US and the EU, the fig leaf of "but I didn't patent the software algorithm, I patented the hardware running the software algorithm" is sufficient to get it granted and survive scrutiny to get it invalidated.
I don't have the time to look up the court case history of the EU--and I know that the EU is a civil law jurisdiction so the court case history isn't precedential in the same way it is in the US--but I would not be shocked if there have been cases that have upheld these software patents, despite the seemingly clear language in the treaties that software patents don't exist. Because the legal field is one wherein the "obvious" definition of software patent isn't necessarily the same as the legal definition.
The reality is that MPEG-LA positively asserts that it has a buttload of EU patents it can sic on your ass for violating, and were I being sued by them, I wouldn't be willing to bet that "but software patents are illegal!" is a winning defense.
The EPO has widened and narrowed the scope of what it considers patentable, and that gives people trying to purposefully get a patent on something that is clearly software either more or less leeway. Obviously I'd like the EPO to be even less forgiving.
But I don't think we're going to get anywhere. The EPO neither has perfect enforcement of its no-software-patents rule, nor is it easily hoodwinked with This One Simple Trick of saying it's a hardware device. The reality is in the middle, and neither of us has a good set of comparative statistics or case studies to contrast the differing EPO and USPTO approaches, so we should probably stop.
But I stick by my original claim: I believe the reason ffmpeg and VLC have not been sued to oblivion is because they're legally based in France, where the MPEG-LA's practises aren't tolerated. The support of a "no software patents" country/government/society encouraged them to develop ffmpeg without fear; the fear we see on display here today in the USA.
I strongly doubt that's the reason. Until recently, it was quite easy to sue anybody in your favorite court in the US on the flimsiest of grounds, and even after SCOTUS said "you need more than 'they sell things here' to establish jurisdiction and venue," the patent-friendly judge in West Texas seems to be trying his hardest not to listen. No, I suspect the reason is much simpler: an open source project doesn't hold enough money to be worth the cost it takes to litigate (on the order of millions of dollars).