Please either add source, or remove this project about openh264

[aredridel]

👍

[robotlolita]

👍

[maxdec]

👍

[jonflanders]

I'm certainly no open source expert - but I found the empty github repository to be very confusing and I agree - embarrassing +1

[jrf0110]

http://cisco.github.io/openh264/faq.html

Q. When will the H.264 source code and binary module be available?
A: Shortly, Cisco will form a governance board for the open source initiative, establish the project, and make the source code and binary module available for download. We will move quickly to carry out these steps, but past experience suggests that it will take a few months before the entire process is complete.

sigh I suppose the blank github repo is a marketing thing.

[fluffy]

We are using github to maintain the web page right now - you can find it on the gh_pages branch. It great forupdating things like the FAQ

[isaacs]

@fluffy Then can you state that explicitly in the README file and the Github description, please? The readme does not address the lack of code, which makes this seem like a typical open-nonsource move.

[aredridel]

@fluffy what @isaacs said.

[thlorenz]

Wow, I wonder if all the stargazers actually looked at oops for the code.
Which is another reason to point out in the Readme that there is no code.
So 👍 on removing the project or at least pointing out in Readme that the is no source that was actually opened.

[artoale]

Then can you state that explicitly in the README file and the Github description, please? The readme does not address the lack of code, which makes this seem like a typical open-nonsource move.

👍 Yup, it's embarrassing

[isaacs]

@fluffy Ok, I just read the FAQ, and frankly, your explanation here is not satisfactory, and I am back to my earlier position. I understand that it's a convenient way to push a website. But that website is the exact problem I called out initially.

The best approach, imo, is to take down the website, and release the big announcement in a few months, when you're actually opening the source. Anything prior to that is open-nonsource. The internet is going to continue to lampoon you for typically clueless big dumb corporate behavior. I understand the position you're in, and I'm trying to help you understand. It's embarrassing, and insulting.

The only question anyone is asking is: "why are you calling this open source when there's no source code?" And yet the "frequently asked questions" list does not have an answer. Instead, it has a link that says "Source Code", and points at this empty github repository. That's not how open source is done.

What is the purpose of this repository? What is the purpose of making this announcement, and publishing a webpage about an open source project that is not open source? It's clueless at best, and deceptive at worst. It's costing you credibility. You'd be better off being quiet while you form the governance board and do the lawyer stuff, and then push everything out into the open when you have something to push.

I don't see any place where you're asking for help, inviting others to join the efforts, etc. There is no "there" there.

Here's why this is insulting: Open Source means a lot to the people who dedicate their lives to it. In many cases, doing so means that they make a lot less money than they could otherwise make, because they feel strongly about the mission and values of fostering a healthy development community. There's a level of dedication and commitment that is shown by actually making stuff and then actually sharing the stuff we make.

When a company says "Hooray, we're open saurce!!1" but doesn't actually share the source code along with the announcement, it appears to be a blatant grab at the goodwill of the maker community, without doing the work that is required of participants in the maker community. This trivializes everything we hold dear, and the typical reaction is to mock and ridicule the company doing it.

I've seen this pattern before, too many times. It never goes well.

What happens if Cisco decides, at some point in the process, that in fact open sourcing their H.264 implementation is a bad idea? Or if the legal entanglements take longer than a "few months" to unravel? What happens if June of 2015 rolls around, and this is still an empty repo?

These are not desert island scenarios. This is what happens the majority of the time. Getting a previously proprietary piece of software into the open, if it is not developed from the start in the open, is incredibly nontrivial. H.264 has all sorts of patents and other IP law stuff around it.

I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, this is a disappointing move by Cisco. Past experience has taught me to bet on it not being opened any time soon.

I appreciate that your intent is most likely 100% benevolent and well-meaning. However, intent doesn't matter. All that matters is what you actually do. Right now, what you're doing is burning credibility and good will. At best, you're making it less likely that your open source project (and, I'm guessing, broader open source strategy) will attract the kind of community that it needs to succeed. Please, don't do this. It's beyond stupid.

[tonylukasavage]

👍

[isaacs]

By the way, the reason I am complaining so vehemently is that I personally care about H.264 being open sourced. I think that it's an extremely exciting development, and I can understand the eagerness to get anything out as soon as you can. I really want your mission to succeed here, and not just devolve into meme gifs and "Gee, isn't Cisco dumb!?" comments, but I can see that's where this is headed.

[sindresorhus]

👍

[englercj]

👍

[nebrius]

👍

[patrickhlauke]

As fun as the thread is, here's an idea: any of you ever been in a situation, out here in the real world, where the boss says "hey, we're announcing this and need a placeholder page...can you just throw something together"?

So good chuckle, but cut Cisco (or rather, @fluffy) some slack here. Note the future tense in the announcement, "we will take our H.264 implementation, and open source it under BSD license terms"...meaning, for the eagle-eyed, that it's not open sourced yet. I'm sure that once it actually IS open sourced (no doubt after armies of lawyers have been consulted), it will appear here...

[isaacs]

@patrickhlauke Yes, I have been in that situation several times, out here in the real world, in fact at almost every tech company I have worked with. (All but one, and probably because I was only an employee there for 3 weeks.) In every one of those situations, I've pushed back as hard, making the same case internally that I'm making here. In every case, not announcing was the right course of action, and thankfully the one we went with.

I believe that it is a responsibility of OSS developers to understand the ramifications and advise their employers as to proper behavior, just as it is a responsibility of employers to trust in the expertise of their employees.

I'm not chuckling. I'm just disappointed and sad.

I can understand that perhaps @fluffy doesn't understand the effects of open nonsource, and this is a learning experience. I'm trying to explain why it doesn't go well, and why this is relevant to the long term viability of a free and open H.264 implementation led by Cisco.

[patrickhlauke]

Tough crowd. So tl;dr: if you're going to announce the open sourcing of something, don't you dare put out a placeholder site until it's open sourced. If your boss tells you to do it, it's your responsibility to fight until the death internally and push it back. Otherwise, you've failed the OSS ethos right from the start. Ok...

[fluffy]

@isaacs It's worth noting that the main factor driving Cisco to announce this when we did was that it was relevant information to a standards decision being made at the IETF. People at IETF needed to understand what were doing and that needed to happen before the code was ready to be open sourced. I think that one can historically see that, for various reasons, Cisco has announced it will open source something before the source code was actually available several times in the past. In every case I am aware of, Cisco actually did open source what it said it would - I realize that may not be the track record at all companies but I guess we can only be judged by our actions. I'm confident this code will be open source by the end of this year (and yes it involves an small army of lawyers to make that happen).

Cullen

I look forward to once it is released people telling me we released it to early or too often and it should have had more functionality before releasing it :-)

[isaacs]

I look forward to once it is released people telling me we released it to early or too often and it should have had more functionality before releasing it :-)

If people complain about that, then you're definitely Doing It Right :)