Microsoft opens a "high priority" bug ticket in ffmpeg, attempting to leech the free labour of the maintainers
trac.ffmpeg.org
Microsoft employee:
Hi, This is a high priority ticket and the FFmpeg version is currently used in a highly visible product in Microsoft. We have customers experience issues with Caption during Teams Live Event. Please help
Maintainer's comment on twitter:
After politely requesting a support contract from Microsoft for long term maintenance, they offered a one-time payment of a few thousand dollars instead.
This is unacceptable.
And further:
The lesson from the xz fiasco is that investments in maintenance and sustainability are unsexy and probably won't get a middle manager their promotion but pay off a thousandfold over many years.
But try selling that to a bean counter
You are viewing a single comment
Can someone enlighten me why a one-time payment of a few thousand for a bugfix is unacceptable? I feel like I'm missing something.
I think the maintainer just viewed the bug report as tone deaf. Microsoft is a trillion dollar company and apparently relying on this library without a support contract. Then they a open a high priority bug item. The maintainer saying it's unacceptable is them basically saying they won't prioritize any work unless there's an existing support contract and that they don't do one off payments for bug fixes, which I think is fair.
I think this mentality shows a clear dissonance between how maintainers are licensing their software and what are their expectations in terms of retribution from users of their software.
If they release a software package with a license that explicitly states that they allow the whole world to use it freely without any expectation if return, they cannot complain afterwards that some particular people in the world end up using it.
Likewise for bug reports.
If they want to get paid because the software they have been releasing to be used freely by everyone is being used freely by a specific company then they need to get their shit together and release it under a license where they explicitly state their terms. This is crítical for everyone involved, specially end users, because we need clarity on these terms.
I don't think the ffmpeg maintainer is complaining that Microsoft is using ffmpeg, rather that they are opening "high priority" bug reports based on customer complaints. This might be a high priority problem for Microsoft but that does not make it so for ffmpeg.
The license allows Microsoft to use ffmpeg but they aren't entitled to demand free labor from the project. Really, no one is entitled to do so, but Microsoft being a large company who can definitely afford to put money or talent on the problem makes it only that much more egregious.
edit: I would note that asking for help or reporting a bug is usually welcome, the problematic part is demanding help because it's a high priority issue for YOUR customers.
Users can only assign priority to issues they create themselves if they are explicitly authorized to assign priorities.
If you provide access to that field but then complain that bug reporters use that field, you're complaining about how you misconfigured your service, not how end users are using it.
Are there any other people targeted in this sort of complain, or is a specific company being singled out just because some low-level grunt filled in a field in a bug report?
FYI they're not a "low-level grunt". The bug author's job title is Principal Software Engineer at Microsoft with (at least) 18 years' experience.
Completely disagree. This is how it works, Microsoft get software for free but they have no authority to prioritise other people's scheduling
I don't know where you're getting the prioritization issue. Anyone in the world who is able to create an issue in a bug tracker can claim anything, but it's always the people doing the bug triages who determine priorities. It means exactly as it means: nothing.
The "is this fixed yet" posts in bug reports by now is a meme in the floss world.
I think you're trying too hard to find something to be outraged over.
The scheduling demand thing is referring specifically to the project manager going “we need this for an upcoming major product launch, so you need to fix this before the launch.” It feels like Microsoft cracking the whip to try getting free labor, because it is.
If they truly can’t do without it for their product launch, they can fork it and fix the bug themselves. Surely Microsoft has the resources and brainpower to do so. But the PM didn’t want to do that, because it means they’d be spending their own time and resources on it.
But they have no whip to crack the guy literally just said please help
They made a demand, based on a product launch time line. This is absurdly rude, abd basically treating open source like slave labor instead of commons.
If you read the same bug report I read, you wouldn't make that claim. They expressed their personal needs, which are their own and theirs alone, and don't extend beyond their personal roadmap.
The issue stated they found a bug that they had to get fixed. They said it was important to them for their own personal reasons. It's laughable to describe what amounts to a run-of-the-mill bug report as "absurdly rude".
Do you actually work on software for a living?
I'm sorry, what? Do you even pay attention to what you're writing?
There's a difference between creating something and giving it to the world and being on the hook to help them solve their business problems. A libre or permissive license does not commit the person who released it to making it work for anyone, for any reason. It is in fact the first line in those licenses.
They don't want to get paid for it being used. They want to get paid to continue working on it by people who need them to continue working on it.
I think you're extrapolating things that aren't there. If you had any experience contributing to any semi-successful floss project you'd be ver aware that asking for fixes is as common as filing bug reports. This is not a Microsoft problem, it's a staple of FLOSS project management.
Why do you think it's reasonable to single out a whole company for doing exactly what the community contribution process was designed to be and achieve? On any case you see FLOSS proponents arguing that filing bug reports and troubleshooting problems counts as contributions to improve a project. Yet, here we are attacking someone for doing just that, because of what exactly? Do you think ffmpeg would be in a better shape if the likes of Microsoft didn't reported bugs?
I have experience contributing to a semi successful FLOSS project, one that I'm 100% certain you use daily. Why do people just assume they know you on the internet? What is it, law of averages? "The likelihood this person arguing with me is a nobody is high enough I can assume it." "If they disagree with me it means they don't know what they're talking about." How does this mentality work? You're the third person in a week on Lemmy (which makes it particularly funny) that has just assumed I don't have experience contributing to FOSS software. Do you have experience contributing to FLOSS software? Have you ever been expected to solve other peoples problems for free? I'm asking because I don't know. Maybe you have. I wouldn't want to get egg on my face assuming something.
I'm not talking about contributing. A drive-by PR does not make you a maintainer, nor gets you to triage bugs. The problems I mention are the bread and butter of maintainers engaged in community support, which you would know if you had any semblance of experience in the subject.
And the truth of the matter is that your choice to use weasel words as seaways to a rant to go off on a tangent demonstrates your complete lack of insight and experience in the subject.
Again thinking you know me. Just stop, you're making yourself look stupid.
Imagine if you gave away some old clothes to some Charity and they called you and said "Some of the socks have holes in them and we need you to come over here and fix those holes ASAP because we want to sell them in our used clothes store". What would be your reaction to that?
The expectation of payment is not for the software (which MS already has and is already using, free of charge, same as everybody else), it's for getting priority in bugfix and maintenance work, or in other words, it's for dictating other people's work rather than merelly getting the product of work they, of their own choice and in their own timings, did and gave away for free.
Free software is a social relationship, not a business relationship: the users get what they get because somebody chose to put their own time into it and is giving it out for free. Such relationship does not entitle the recipients of the goodwill of others to make demands on their time, especially if said recipients are actually profiting from what those other people gave away. If they want the right to get to use other people's time as they see fit, then they have to get into a business relationship and that's only going to happen in business terms that both parties are willing to have.
Further, nobody is stopping MS from using their own programmers to fix that problem themselves.
I think your hypothetical scenario doesn't match the issue being discussed in a few key aspects.
You're giving old clothes with no expectation of return. Why then get pissed because someone is using your clothes without paying you for them?
Then,if you make it your point to put up a system for everyone to file tickets pointing problems with the clothes you're giving away, why are you whining that the system is being used as it was designed to be used?
It's perfectly fine if you feel the need to prioritize your work based on your criteria alone, and anyone else's input is at most a suggestion. That's what everyone expects of it, too. But don't throw a tantrum when someone uses your work precisely as you told the world to use it.
I don't think you are able to grok the actual issue, which is a big corp demanding free work, then demanding a pittance to complete the work, then being buthurt when people refuse to work with them.
Where did they demand it?
Learn how to read man.
I guess I can't so can you just quote it?
Nah, do the work yourself.
I looked and couldn't find it, that's why I said what I said
So is the real analogy …
You gave some old clothes to charity, expecting nothing back. However you spotted a lawyer wearing your old clothes so walked up and demanded money?
No no no lawyer came knocking at my door begging me to darn a sock
And of course you said “sorry but I can’t do that right now” and went on with your life , rather than jumping down his throat, then holding a grudge for 11 months?
If the dude was so tone deaf and myopic I'd post a bad review on yelp
The point of my comment seems to have missed you, turned around and done another pass and missed you again.
I get that you're dyslexic but take the time to read what was written before responding.
I'm just dumb, but I don't see how what they said is wrong
Found the PM
It's not that Microsoft isn't allowed to use ffmpeg, it's that they start demanding quick service. When you use an open source product, you get what you get. You can politely ask for a fix somewhere, you can fix it yourself and make a merge request, but being amongst the biggest corporations in the world, you don't go without a support contract yet make demands and then maybe toss in a few thousand dollars, that is just insulting.
Had this been a non Foss product, MS would have a support contract. This just shows Microsofts typical greed.
Where did they demand?
I'm not sure what experience you have in maintaining any somewhat popular FLOSS project, but as I said in other posts the way random users demand features and fixes in these circles already became a meme in FLOSS circles. We're talking about insults and belligerent attitudes towards whole projects in abstract and maintainers in particular, to the point maintainers end up burning out and quitting.
Knowing this, complaining that a particular request was described as high-priority as if this was unacceptable, fully knowing that this doesn't even represent a remark that's out of line given the baseline, is something that makes no sense at all. It sounds as an lame attempt to be outraged about something.
It's one thing to just use the software, it's another to open bug tickets that you expect the maintainer to prioritise. It's free software, the maintainer doesn't have to do anything for you. If they want tickets fixed with high priority, they should work something out with the maintainer.
The problem isnt that ms was using it The problem is that ms wanted special treatment for free because of their timetable, which wasnt even 'oh shit everything broke' but for a fucking product launch as if the maintainers should care about that, treating a fucking charity like a contractor, and really highlighting how all this proprietary bullshit can only exist because of the work provided by open source people.
Microsoft needs to see serious consequences from the open source community for this.
They filed a bug report, with a reproducible bug.
Some guides on how to contribute to FLOSS projects even go as far as listing this as one of the main ways to contribute to projects.
But here you are, describing a run-of-the-mill bug report, filed among hundreds of bug reports, in a ticketing system explicitly opened to the public so that everyone and anyone in the world could file bug reports, as a request for "special treatment for free".
Do you think every single person filing a bug report is asking to be given special treatment for free? Everyone's bug is very important to them too. What makes you think this case is special or even any different?
The report of the bug is not the problem. The prioritization, reasoning for the prioritization, and demand that it be fixed quickly for their product launch was the problem.
The fact that when asked, they offered pay for a spot fix rather than maintenance, essentially abusing the Commons for corporate profit, and being super fucking rude about it, was the problem.
People in this thread are arguing otherwise.
Users filing tickets do not prioritize jack shit. That's not how it works. At best they mention an issue is important to them. Not even in big corporations dealing with internal tickets things work like that. The responsibility of prioritizing work lies on the project owners, exclusively.
Literally what each and every single user affected by a problem asks in their bug reports.
Again, why do you feel this is something that warrants your outrage?
Okay so talk to one of them about it. I'm with you on this part. So bizzaire.
That's not even the issue. Nobody cares that MS is using ffmpeg. It's just rude to have as much money as MS does, integrate ffmpeg into one of their core products, then apparently not know anything about it and file hilariously bad bug reports that are actually just support requests after never contributing anything back.
Like, I've used ffmpeg probably since it was released. I've never given the ffmpeg developers anything, and I expect nothing in return from them. They don't know me, they don't know I exist, they don't know I use their software. I could not reasonably file a support request as a bug like they did and expect to be taken seriously. Why does Microsoft get to have this expectation when they behave the same way? They're a big company who asked ffmpeg to do extra work to support MS's ignorance and laziness, and they didn't even offer an ongoing support relationship. They wanted to throw a few grand at ffmpeg once to make the problem go away. This is completely ridiculous.
Literal nonsense. If someone abuses my bug tracker to act like a clown, I have every right to decline their support requests, even if I licensed my software open source. Nothing in open source philosophy requires you to bend over backwards to cater to every MS project manager's poorly thought-out whims. You're literally just making things up.
From what little we know, it looks like they used it correctly
Priority is guidance from the user. The maintainer always has the decision how they’ll respond. You could have said you don’t have time, you could have said it’s on my queue to look at later, you could have said you don’t provide support.
We're talking about a hypothetical. I'm not the ffmpeg maintainer. The person got help in their thread and everything was courteous. I wouldn't even be rude about it, I just wouldn't hold their hand, and I might make a comment about the value of doing some legwork on your own when an update to a core dependency seems to break something. If this kind of behavior is considered sensible for a project manager at MS, then apparently I'm more qualified to manage projects than a lot of people at some of the largest corporations on Earth.
That is literally the opposite of what you were just saying. You were saying that open source developers can't even complain when responsible people at gigantic corporations file dumb bug reports against their project.
You surely haven't been paying attention to this thread.
Seriously? Is this the argument you're going with?
Unbelievable.
There was no bug to fix, the PM didn't keep up with developments in an (apparently) core dependency and was passing outdated arguments to ffmpeg. The fix was for the project to update how it was passing flags to ffmpeg. They'd rather spend the time opening a ticket on ffmpeg's bugtracker and spend thousands of company money begging ffmpeg to help them, when MS is a massive corporation, is apparently relying on ffmpeg, yet has hitherto established no support relationship and also has developed no internal expertise on ffmpeg
They easily could have opened up the code and looked around to find the problem, or checked the changelog since an update broke it, or just rolled back to the last-known working version until they had time to figure it out, instead they just dumped it on ffmpeg's doorstep like their hair was on fire. FFMPEG's development model is explicitly that they iterate quickly and there are very likely to be poorly documented breaking changes between versions. It's not one you pull a new version of casually.
Ok, this time I read the full ticket, so ….
I love to hate on Microsoft too, but I only see one asshole here
The point is that a multi billion dollar company, known for squashing and sabotaging open source projects, wants a bug fixed quickly. The open source software that they make big money from has an issue and they COULD just sponsor it, get a support contract, whatever, but instead they want priority because reasons?
If it was a random user, then whatever. The entire point is that this is not a simple random user.
Thanks was too lazy to read the actual issue - exactly what i expected
A trillion dollar company using your product in one of their flagship products without a support contract can fuck right off.
Microsoft should be putting up money via the support contract to support the creators in maintaining and further development of their product.
A one off payment might be technically sufficient, it is not ethically or morally sufficient. And to put it in terms shareholders understand.. support contract is cheaper than the cost of an alternative.
Well it depends on the size of the one time payment. A 6 or 7 figure one time payment would likely get a maintainer to do something. But micro$oft should really be paying a long term support contract for sure.
The maintainer is a human that needs to eat every day, and not just whenever their services are needed. So at least, the sum of money would need to be a few times higher than whatever labour the fix takes.
But then, the maintainer's ability to fix these bugs doesn't come from nowhere. They worked on this project for likely a long time, which would also need to be taken into account when agreeing on a sum.
Further, this would be business to business. And those contracts often include the value that the client gets out of the software. So if Microsoft makes billions from this open source library, then the maintainer's - as a business - should receive a payment that reflects this for the fix.
All that implies that a few thousand is not nearly enough. Maybe 100k and the maintainer would budge.
That's perfectly fine.
But the maintainer is indeed explicitly making his work available to the public for free and without any expectation of retribution of any kind, isn't it?
And this isn't exactly something new or recent or novel, right? That's been going on for many years.
What changed? Did anything changed at all, even?
Microsoft is no longer able to outcompete the Free Software commons. That's all.
You might want to re-read the thread and think about how you sound, by the way. You're coming off as a concern troll, not as a member of the Free Software community.
Companies hate giving out cash. Even if it's for software they critically need.
I think for most cases getting the cash is the easy part, and the hard part is getting all the paperwork in place to validate payments to random external entities. If that was easy, nothing would stop any low-level manager from making cash payments to random users with a GitHub account.
All of the other things you mention can be solved with money. In terms of the things that are easy and hard, this very much the former.
The real hard part here is whomever in charge of making the actual decision, to expense a pittance.
I don't think you know what you're talking about, or have any experience working in a corporate environment and asking for funding or extraordinary payments to external parties to deliver something. I even personally know of cases where low-level grunts opt to pay for licenses out of pocket just to not have to deal with the hassle of jumping through the necesssry hoops. You just don't reach out for the cash bag and throw money at things. Do you think that corporations work like hip-hop videos?
I do have some experience. What you are talking about are all internal hurdles, and what I was referring to as the hard problem to solve.
Incurring an expense in order to compensate for a service rendered, which is what the company would need to do in this case, is not difficult.
If you deal with amounts that need special consideration, there are people who do this for you for money. I believe that the correct approach is to show up, and sequentially slide individual banknotes from a densely packed stack in their general direction.
That is by design.
They do whenever the CEO is briefly mildly inconvenienced.
this is true. I tried to donate a small sum to an open source package my team uses a lot. I gave up after weeks of fighting the finance bureucracy.
Long term maintenance. Meaning not a simple bug fix but providing support on demand and possibly prioritizing requests by the contract grantor for an extended period.
Fixing a bug for a fee will create a liability and obligations for the developer. Should you mess it up, Microsoft will have no issue burying you to save even just face.
I can see him getting into a long term relationship that could guarantee the projects survival long-term,(and you at least invest some money for a lawyer to tell you what your are signing on for). For something that would get a few months for the project not so much.