Some GPLv2 projects monetize by selling: support, extension via custom features, or simply the permission for a commercial use. This is possible, and it’s what I called “the legalese package”. Imagine ffmpeg being able to charge every year any amount they want to the biggest clients, like GAFAM. Yet you’re still able to use it non commercially… To be fair, there’re some middle uses, that get the disadvantage of having to break the license or ask for permission. For example, if you create anything with ffmpeg, then as an indie dev you’d need to launch your product breaking the license or paying them… But even so, situation is manageable (e.g. ffmpeg could spare you and/ or give a 1 year permission to small businesses)
It’s unclear what you are trying to say. The question was what would switching license do. There’s 2 scenarios: 1) either Google is really not doing changes in ffmpeg source internally right now …or 2) they are in fact making changes to it internally (perhaps for encoding with their own codecs, etc.) which they are not releasing back to the public (since the code is LGPL, and not AGPL)
With situation 1, they can simply continue using ffmpeg, even if it were to switch to AGPL. They would have no need/obligation to release anything, whether they decide to fund development or not. The way I see it, only if it’s situation 2, will Google be affected by a license change. However, if the use they make of ffmpeg is just to have their own encoder program for use with specific codecs, they might as well decide to stop using ffmpeg for this purpose instead and have their own program to work with their encoders. Most of the encoding work is already being done in the encoding libraries separately released (like libaom, which Google licensed under BSD-2).
But even in the rare case of Google having made changes that (after license change) they would suddenly decide to be willing to share with the community despite having not done so before… the whole problem with this bug-reporting mess is that most of the issues reported by the automated tools aren’t something really that impactful/important, they are things that even Google would not really be that interested to fix… (why would Google need to fix a codec that only affects a videogame cinematic from 1995?). These reports are just the result of automated & indiscriminated AI analysis, slop.
Some GPLv2 projects monetize by selling: support, extension via custom features, or simply the permission for a commercial use. This is possible, and it’s what I called “the legalese package”. Imagine ffmpeg being able to charge every year any amount they want to the biggest clients, like GAFAM. Yet you’re still able to use it non commercially… To be fair, there’re some middle uses, that get the disadvantage of having to break the license or ask for permission. For example, if you create anything with ffmpeg, then as an indie dev you’d need to launch your product breaking the license or paying them… But even so, situation is manageable (e.g. ffmpeg could spare you and/ or give a 1 year permission to small businesses)
It’s unclear what you are trying to say. The question was what would switching license do. There’s 2 scenarios: 1) either Google is really not doing changes in ffmpeg source internally right now …or 2) they are in fact making changes to it internally (perhaps for encoding with their own codecs, etc.) which they are not releasing back to the public (since the code is LGPL, and not AGPL)
With situation 1, they can simply continue using ffmpeg, even if it were to switch to AGPL. They would have no need/obligation to release anything, whether they decide to fund development or not. The way I see it, only if it’s situation 2, will Google be affected by a license change. However, if the use they make of ffmpeg is just to have their own encoder program for use with specific codecs, they might as well decide to stop using ffmpeg for this purpose instead and have their own program to work with their encoders. Most of the encoding work is already being done in the encoding libraries separately released (like libaom, which Google licensed under BSD-2).
But even in the rare case of Google having made changes that (after license change) they would suddenly decide to be willing to share with the community despite having not done so before… the whole problem with this bug-reporting mess is that most of the issues reported by the automated tools aren’t something really that impactful/important, they are things that even Google would not really be that interested to fix… (why would Google need to fix a codec that only affects a videogame cinematic from 1995?). These reports are just the result of automated & indiscriminated AI analysis, slop.
I appreciate the lengthy answer, I just don’t understand what this has to do with bugs.