Discussion

Private Video Processing in Your Browser

elpocko: > FFmpeg compiled to WebAssembly handles final encodeFFmpeg's license is the LGPL 2.1. VidStudio looks like closed source software, I couldn't see any indication that it's free software. You're distributing this software to run in the client's browser. I'm not a lawyer but I think you're in breach of the terms of the LGPL.https://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html

xnx: How does it compare to https://omniclip.app/ or https://tooscut.app ?

prhn: You probably already know this, but I could not import 10-bit video on Windows which I think would be fairly common among the target audience.ffmpeg supports decoding 10-bit video.

CodesInChaos: It should be possible to comply with LGPL without publishing the source code of the whole application. Either by running the application and ffmpeg in different isolates (wasm processes), or by offering a way to merge (link) the wasm code of the closed-source application with a user compiled FFmpeg wasm build.Different isolates might even be enough to satisfy GPL, similar to how you can invoke FFmpeg as a command line tool from a closed application. Though that is probably legally shaky ground.

kolx: Thank you for pointing this out, to be completely honest, I did not consider licensing because the website started as a collection of tools I built to run locally and get into video/audio codecs then I realised it is already a decent collection of tools that other people might want to use too. But I will be making the needed changes to comply fully tonight. At least I comply with this: `Do not misspell FFmpeg (two capitals F and lowercase "mpeg")` I realised I have some more reading to do regarding GPL vs LGPL because of the wasm project.

freedomben: Any reason not to just open source it? Personally I'd love to hack on it :-) IANAL, but IMHO AGPL would be a good fit here as it complies with LGPL and also ensures nobody can stand it up for profit without contributing back).

senko: LGPL permits that.However, some popular codecs use GPL, which, if enabled, would require to distribute the rest of the code under it as well.

elpocko: LGPL permits you to distribute binaries, but you can't distribute the software as an opaque binary blob with no reasonable way to modify it. What even is the equivalent of a shared library that a user can replace when software runs in the browser?Anyway, OP doesn't do most of the things FFmpeg lists under their "License Compliance Checklist".

trinix912: > Anyway, OP doesn't do most of the things FFmpeg lists under their "License Compliance Checklist".Legitimately asking, which points and how are they expected to handle it for this type of app (assuming they want to keep it closed source)? As far as I understand it they just need to credit the libraries?

b1temy: Also wondering how it compares to https://pikimov.com , another browser-based video editor I've seen making the rounds.

jmaw: You should look into how other companies and tools that use FFMPEG handle this situation.I wonder if you can keep your application itself closed source, but make an open-source adapter that handles the interaction with FFMPEG.I'm not super familiar with open source licensing, and IANAL, so make sure to do your own research :)

kreco: Sorry for the significantly unrelated comment:Does anyone know if there is any limitation to create a "https-local://" or something like that, which guarantee that things are only downloaded, and never uploaded?

jamiehugo30: Curious how you're handling the MP4 export entirely client-side — are you using FFmpeg compiled to WebAssembly, or something custom built around the WebCodecs API?

netdevphoenix: > Any reason not to just open source it?Mmmm...potential commercialisation? Always find it curious that people expect to get source code for free in ways that they don't do for other work (ask George Martin to release his drafts and notes).

sroussey: Or the other likely version: prevent commercialization. No source means that someone can’t make a fork, put on a new domain, run ads and charge money for his work.

mghackerlady: The problem is you can commercialise free software if you're creative about it. RMS made a decent amount of money working on emacs, redhat and SUSE exist, google has managed to commercialise chromium

freedomben: > The problem is you can commercialise free software if you're creative about it.Did you mean to say that it is a problem? From the rest of your comment, and in the context of GP's comment, it sounds like commercializing is NOT a problem.