“I wonder if they'll get mad”—Mitchell Hashimoto on FFmpeg

“I wonder if they'll get mad”—Mitchell Hashimoto on FFmpeg 🔗 **Source:** [“I wonder if they'll get mad”—Mitchell Hashimoto on FFmpeg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77fH--tlIOk) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [open-source, sustainability, licensing, ffmpeg] > author: Mitchell Hashimoto > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77fH--tlIOk > date created: 2024-12-19 13:45 > > # 🏷️ Title: "I wonder if they'll get mad"—Mitchell Hashimoto on FFmpeg >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Examine current open source licensing strategy for sustainability gaps — 00:00-02:30 #licensing - [H2] Research value capture mechanisms in supply chain dependencies — 02:30-04:00 #sustainability - [H3] Consider forced/tax-like mechanisms for open source funding — 04:00-05:20 #policy ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### 🔗 References - [Original Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77fH--tlIOk) ## 📝 Summary - Mitchell Hashimoto discusses FFmpeg's sustainability challenges and criticism of companies like YouTube/Twitch - He argues the current system works as intended—FFmpeg gave software away freely with no warranty - The core issue is philosophical: wanting open source sustainability while maintaining current licensing ideals - Suggests fundamental changes needed, potentially including forced mechanisms like taxation - Bottom line: Open source sustainability requires abandoning some traditional philosophical principles ## 📖 Main Content Hashimoto examines the tension between open source ideals and sustainability through the lens of FFmpeg, a critical multimedia library used by major platforms like YouTube and Twitch. He distinguishes between FFmpeg's complaints about being taken advantage of versus the reality that they offered free software with no warranty. The core argument centers on value creation in business contexts. Hashimoto contends that FFmpeg alone creates no business value—the value emerges from products built around it. This creates a fundamental mismatch between where value is captured (the wrapper products) and where foundational work occurs (the open source dependency). He proposes that sustainability might require license changes or policy mechanisms that force profit-sharing down the supply chain, but acknowledges this conflicts with traditional open source philosophy. The discussion touches on whether voluntary goodwill from companies can ever be sufficient, or if mandatory mechanisms (described as "taxation") are necessary. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/77fH--tlIOk?t=0) — [H1] FFmpeg Twitter criticism - Key idea: FFmpeg's social media highlights being taken advantage of by big tech companies - Evidence: "they keep taking credit for the value of things like YouTube and Twitch" #### ⏱️ [00:25](https://youtu.be/77fH--tlIOk?t=25) — [H2] The fair trade argument - Key idea: Current arrangement is exactly what was offered—free software, no warranty - Evidence: "You gave the software away for free, with no warranty and so on, and you're getting exactly what you asked for" #### ⏱️ [00:45](https://youtu.be/77fH--tlIOk?t=45) — [H3] Social good isn't sustainable - Key idea: Relying on companies' voluntary goodwill creates unstable funding - Evidence: "you can't rely on these companies out of social good because that's all the contract is right now" #### ⏱️ [01:15](https://youtu.be/77fH--tlIOk?t=75) — [H2] License-based profit sharing - Key idea: Mechanisms could force profit sharing down the supply chain - Evidence: "if there's a certain part of that, that has to flow down into your vendors, into your supply chain" #### ⏱️ [01:45](https://youtu.be/77fH--tlIOk?t=105) — [H1] Philosophical change required - Key idea: Sustainability requires abandoning some traditional open source ideals - Evidence: "there has to be a fundamental change in some of the philosophical ideals in order to reach the sustainability" #### ⏱️ [02:10](https://youtu.be/77fH--tlIOk?t=130) — [H3] Value creation business perspective - Key idea: FFmpeg alone creates no business value—value comes from wrapper products - Evidence: "FFmpeg isn't a product. When I put on my business hat, you didn't create any value" #### ⏱️ [02:35](https://youtu.be/77fH--tlIOk?t=155) — [H2] System working as intended - Key idea: Current outcomes match the original terms offered by open source projects - Evidence: "the system is working as intended" #### ⏱️ [03:00](https://youtu.be/77fH--tlIOk?t=180) — [H3] Desire for better funding - Key idea: Wants FFmpeg to receive more funding despite system working correctly - Evidence: "I want them to be better funded, and I wish they could have gotten a piece of the pie" #### ⏱️ [03:30](https://youtu.be/77fH--tlIOk?t=210) — [H2] Persistent resentment problem - Key idea: Even with more funding, maintainers will likely want more - Evidence: "I think they'll still be resentment being like, 'It should be more. It should be more.'" #### ⏱️ [04:00](https://youtu.be/77fH--tlIOk?t=240) — [H1] Forced mechanisms needed - Key idea: Only mandatory systems can reach socially acceptable funding levels - Evidence: "unless it is forced. Taxed. Taxed." ## 📚 References - [FFmpeg Project](https://ffmpeg.org/) - [YouTube](https://youtube.com/) - [Twitch](https://twitch.tv/) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - FFmpeg criticizes big tech companies for profiting from their free software, but Hashimoto argues this is exactly what was offered under traditional open source terms - The fundamental problem is that business value gets created by products that wrap open source dependencies, not by the dependencies themselves - Sustainable open source funding likely requires abandoning some traditional philosophical principles and implementing forced profit-sharing mechanisms ## 📰 Newsletter **Open Source Sustainability: The FFmpeg Reality Check** Mitchell Hashimoto's candid take on FFmpeg's funding challenges cuts to the heart of open source sustainability debates. His key insight: we can't have traditional open source licensing *and* guaranteed sustainability—something has to give. The practical reality? Most open source projects create enabling value, not direct business value. That value gets captured by wrapper products and platforms. If we want sustainable funding, we need new mechanisms—potentially mandatory ones. For WordPress developers, this raises important questions about our own sustainability models and how we balance community values with maintainer needs. **Key Takeaway:** Voluntary goodwill isn't a sustainable business model for critical infrastructure. Resources: [Learn WordPress](https://learn.wordpress.org/), [Developer Docs](https://developer.wordpress.org/), [WP-CLI](https://wp-cli.org/) ## ✅ Action Items #### OSPO - Policy & Governance: Review contribution policies for sustainability mechanisms - Strategic Alignment: Assess dependency funding strategies and supply chain value flow - Developer Support: Create guidelines for evaluating open source license sustainability implications #### Community - Maintainers: Develop template agreements for value-sharing with commercial users - Contributors: Create educational materials on sustainability vs. traditional open source philosophy - Sponsors: Design transparent frameworks for mandatory vs. voluntary funding models #### WordPress - Core: Evaluate dependency funding responsibilities and supply chain sustainability - Community: Facilitate discussions on balancing open source ideals with maintainer sustainability - Documentation: Create resources explaining value creation vs. value capture in open source ecosystems ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Voluntary corporate funding of open source dependencies will remain insufficient for sustainability at scale - Mandatory profit-sharing mechanisms would significantly improve open source maintainer funding - Traditional open source licensing philosophy is incompatible with reliable sustainability funding - Value-based licensing could bridge the gap between wrapper product profits and dependency funding ### 📊 Methodology - Survey analysis comparing voluntary vs. mandatory funding outcomes across open source projects - Economic modeling of value flow from dependencies to end products - Case study comparison of projects using traditional vs. modified licensing approaches ### ❓ Questions - What specific mechanisms could force profit-sharing down open source supply chains? - How would mandatory funding requirements affect open source adoption rates? - Can hybrid models maintain core open source principles while enabling sustainability? ### 🔮 Future Research - Analysis of emerging sustainable licensing models and their adoption rates - Economic impact studies of mandatory vs. voluntary open source funding - Governance models that balance sustainability with traditional open source values ### 💡 Implications - Practice: OSPOs need strategies for evaluating and supporting dependency sustainability - Policy: New licensing frameworks may be needed to enable mandatory funding flows - Education: Developers need better understanding of value creation vs. capture in open source - Funding: Voluntary sponsorship models may need replacement with systematic mechanisms ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: Grade 12 (complex business and licensing concepts) #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: None in audio-only format - Improve: Value flow diagrams, licensing model comparisons, funding mechanism flowcharts #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Original audio discussion format - Improve: 3-minute summary podcast episode #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Clear analogies to business value and fair trade concepts - Improve: Glossary of licensing terms, sustainability vocabulary #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: None in discussion format - Improve: License comparison worksheet, funding model calculator #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Clear cause-and-effect reasoning about licensing and outcomes - Improve: Decision tree for choosing sustainability mechanisms #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Discussion format invites community debate - Improve: Facilitated discussion guide, stakeholder perspective exercises #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Complex philosophical questions for individual reflection - Improve: Self-assessment of project sustainability strategies #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Supply chain and ecosystem thinking - Improve: Sustainability lifecycle analogies, ecosystem health metrics ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Basic transcript structure - Improve: Proper heading hierarchy, speaker identification markup #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard video player controls - Improve: Timestamped navigation, chapter markers #### Contrast and readability - Present: Standard text formatting - Improve: High-contrast transcript option, large text version #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Basic responsive text - Improve: Ensure no clipping at 200% zoom #### Media and captions - Present: Full transcript available - Improve: Closed captions on video, downloadable transcript #### Forms and interactions - Present: Standard video interface - Improve: Accessible sharing controls ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: US-centric business examples - Improve: Global open source sustainability examples, non-Western licensing approaches #### Inclusive language - Present: Technical jargon well-defined - Improve: Plain language summary, avoid business idioms #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Clear logical structure in arguments - Improve: Visual outline of key points, consistent terminology #### Representation - Present: Single speaker perspective - Improve: Multiple stakeholder viewpoints, maintainer voices #### Psychological safety - Present: Respectful framing of disagreements - Improve: Content warning about funding criticism ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Strong syllogism about licensing terms and expectations - Inductive strength: Good use of FFmpeg as representative example - Causal reasoning: Clear links between licensing choices and funding outcomes - Analogical strength: Effective business value vs. enabling value distinction #### Fallacies - False dichotomy: Presents traditional licensing vs. sustainability as binary choice when hybrid models might exist - Appeal to consequences: Argues current system is "working as intended" without examining if intentions were optimal #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Thoughtful but provocative, acknowledging complexity while taking clear positions ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: No denial patterns present - Attack: No attacks on accusers - Reverse victim/offender: No victim/offender reversals - Emotional cues and rhetoric: Balanced discussion with empathy for all parties ## 🎯 Conclusion Hashimoto's analysis reveals a fundamental tension in open source: we cannot simultaneously maintain traditional free licensing principles and achieve reliable sustainability funding. The current system works exactly as designed, but that design may be inadequate for supporting critical infrastructure. The practical next step is experimenting with new licensing models that enable mandatory value-sharing while preserving the core benefits of open source development. This requires accepting that some traditional philosophical ideals may need to evolve. For practitioners, this suggests evaluating dependency funding strategies and considering how to support sustainable open source ecosystems through both voluntary and systematic mechanisms. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad Purpose: Stage CEE units that become Literature notes. Split level: H3 ### [H1] Traditional open source licensing conflicts with sustainability > [!quote] "I wonder if they'll get mad"—Mitchell Hashimoto on FFmpeg by Mitchell Hashimoto via YouTube. Published 2024. Accessed 2024-12-19. > "there has to be a fundamental change in some of the philosophical ideals in order to reach the sustainability" Hashimoto argues maintaining traditional free licensing while achieving reliable funding requires abandoning core open source principles. [view highlight](https://youtu.be/77fH--tlIOk?t=105#H1) #xref #articleseed ID:rw_hashimoto_ffmpeg_001 ### [H2] Voluntary corporate funding insufficient for sustainability > [!quote] "I wonder if they'll get mad"—Mitchell Hashimoto on FFmpeg > "you can't rely on these companies out of social good because that's all the contract is right now" Corporate voluntary goodwill creates unstable funding model for critical open source infrastructure. [view highlight](https://youtu.be/77fH--tlIOk?t=75#H2) #xref ID:rw_hashimoto_ffmpeg_002 --- ### 🔖 Atomic Split Pad (Zettel Candidates) Purpose: Promote reusable claims into Atomic notes. Split level: H4 #### [Z1] Open source dependencies rarely create direct business value - Applies to enabling technologies vs end-user products - Pointer to 02:10 timestamp - Links: [[Value-Creation]] [[Open-Source-Economics]] #### [Z2] Mandatory mechanisms may be required for sustainable funding - When voluntary approaches prove insufficient at scale - Pointer to 04:00 timestamp - Links: [[Sustainability-Models]] [[Licensing-Strategy]] --- ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue Purpose: Capture quick actions for Fleeting notes. - [F1] Research existing mandatory profit-sharing license models — context/URL #fleeting #inbox - [F2] Analyze WordPress dependency funding strategies — context/URL #fleeting #inbox - [F3] Survey maintainer perspectives on sustainability vs. traditional licensing — context/URL #fleeting #inbox --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] There's a particularly loud and snarky [00:02] part of the Internet, which is [00:03] the FFmpeg twitter handle [00:05] Yes, yes. [00:06] I like some of what they do, [00:07] I don't like some of what they do, [00:08] but, it's real things they bring up. [00:10] I see them constantly highlight this [00:13] thing that I've seen [00:13] other sustainable Open Source advocates [00:15] also highlight, which is [00:17] they keep taking credit for [00:19] the value of things like [00:20] YouTube and Twitch and things like that, [00:22] or they keep acting as [00:23] if they're being taken advantage of [00:25] with those companies using it, [00:26] and that I really disagree with. [00:27] You gave the software away for free, [00:29] with no warranty and so on, [00:31] and you're getting exactly [00:32] what you asked for. [00:34] Like there's no ... [00:34] You don't have a right to be ... [00:35] This is a perfectly fair trade [00:37] in terms of what you offered. [00:38] But I think that's the issue is that you [00:39] can't rely on these [00:40] companies out of social good [00:42] because that's all the contract is right now [00:44] if they so feel in their hearts [00:46] to pay it forward. [00:47] But if from the beginning there was a [00:49] license or some other [00:51] policy mechanism such that [00:52] a certain part of that profit that ... [00:55] It's probably not ... it isn't profit ... this is ... [00:57] We're probably talking about [00:58] like market cap here, [00:59] but if there's a certain part of that, [01:01] that has to flow down [01:03] into your vendors, [01:04] into your supply chain, [01:05] then I think it would work better. [01:07] But then I think that comes at odds [01:08] because now you're putting conditions. [01:11] I think people are trying to hold on to [01:12] all these parts of Open Source, [01:13] and make it sustainable, [01:15] and I think there has to be a [01:17] fundamental change in some of the [01:20] philosophical ideals [01:21] in order to reach the sustainability. [01:24] When I think about [01:24] Open Source sustainability in general, [01:25] I'm trying to think about the [01:26] full supply chain. [01:27] FFmpeg isn't a product. [01:29] When I put on my business hat, you didn't [01:31] create any value because there's no value [01:33] in FFmpeg on its own. [01:34] The value is this [01:36] product that wrapped around it. [01:37] In that argument, you get nothing. [01:40] I wonder if the FFmpeg people will ever [01:41] watch this and be mad about it. [01:43] I want them to be better funded, [01:44] and I wish they could have [01:46] gotten a piece of the pie [01:48] of people who leverage FFmpeg on top. [01:50] I just think that right now the system is [01:52] working as intended. [01:53] I'm not saying the [01:54] system should stay the same. [01:55] I'm actually saying [01:55] the system should change. [01:57] But it's currently working as intended [01:58] and that's a really [01:59] good example of a very high value [02:01] thing that was produced from that [02:03] that it would have [02:04] impacted probably greatly. [02:05] Even if you reach the point where that is [02:07] funding a lot more [02:08] people and that's a success [02:09] for sure, I think they'll still be [02:11] resentment being like, "It should be more. [02:13] It should be more." [02:14] And I don't know if you could reach a [02:16] more that is socially [02:18] accepted to be good enough [02:20] unless it is forced. [02:22] Taxed. [02:23] Taxed.