James Almer (12019-01-13): > If no one challenges, then either no one looked at it, or everyone that > looked at it was fine with it. Where is the issue then?
If nobody looked, how can we know there is no obvious security issue? > You're looking for a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Tell that to the people who have been insulted for raising valid objections on sponsored work. > Sponsored work has been disclosed before without any kind of guidelines. Not all of it. > If you want something people will not NAK on sight, write one where you > require to double check who the copyright belongs to in case of > sponsorship to prevent wrong commit authorship, and to *suggest* stating > sponsorship status if the copyright ultimately belongs to the developer. > Drop any mention about remuneration disclosure if it was not public to > begin with, and then it can be discussed. Re-read the rationale in the proposed patch: copyright is only one of them. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
