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).
The parent commenter is making that comment because this is precisely the nature of why the GPL license exists. Most of the processing of this application is FFMPEG, so why should someone who has done zero development on that library commercialize it?
Most of the processing of the application is FFMPEG yes, but there's a whole lot of application outside of the processing. Video editors UIs that don't make you want to tear your hair out are a valuable commodity and I think OP has the right to commercialize that if they want to. They just need to use FFMPEG in the right way as they do it.
This application doesn't work without FFMPEG. I'm not arguing that the wrapper isn't valuable, I'm saying there is a significant chunk of it that is required for us to work is an open source library.
that's the same thing with the mach kernel and OSX, but you don't see anyone clamoring for one of the richest companies on earth to open source their OS.
From what I understand about this application ffmpeg of only used for export? That is very little of the processing of true, they mentioned the webcodec is used extensively and likely the only real requirement on ffmpeg is muxing into mp4 which to be entirely honest isn't much processing.
VidStudio invokes FFmpeg — a free multimedia framework — to handle certain video and audio processing operations. FFmpeg is licensed under the GNU General Public License v2 (or later).
The FFmpeg WebAssembly binary is not hosted or redistributed by VidStudio. Your browser fetches it directly from the public npm mirror at cdn.jsdelivr.net the first time you use a feature that requires it.
FFmpeg source code is available from ffmpegwasm/ffmpeg.wasm (the WebAssembly port) and git.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg.git (upstream FFmpeg). The full text of the GPL v2 license is available at gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.
FFmpeg doesn't disallow commercialization. Or to put it another way, the authors of FFmpeg specifically allowed commercialization. As long as you follow the LGPL you're free to commercialize your app that uses FFmeg
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.
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
> 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.
Hence why I asked the question... And not everybody does everything for commercial reasons, so it would be dumb to assume that and therefore not ask the question.
> 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).
Where in my question did you get that I expect to get source code for free in ways that I don't for other work?
But regardless, you do know that open source is a common thing right? People open source things all the time, especially on HN.
Also OP already says they don't do any uploading of your videos to the cloud, so this thing already runs local-only. It's not like there is a shortage of video editors around (including ... open source ... video editors)
Interesting, but is Apple as ethical yet as its premium price point could suggest? Fairphone (material sourcing) and Framework (repairability) would suggest otherwise.
> For translating small texts I use Gemma 4 on my iPhone because it’s faster and better than Apple Translate or Google Translate and works offline.
What does better mean here? Does it handle formal vs informal speech? Idiomatic expressions? Regional variances (like American vs British English)? These are areas where Google Translate is weak.
How fast are we talking here (including initial loading times) and what's the impact on your phone battery? Also, what iPhone do you have?
I am really interested in this application hence my questions.
I feel like this needs a big asterisk. Can you ship a a non-trivial iOS or Mac app that uses SwiftUI or other first-party APIs without Xcode? Is it practical? Those are real questions, some cursory searching did not turn up a concrete answer.
It is possible and practical in lots of cases. And it's necessary to use the CLI tools directly in some situations, such as when deploying from CI servers rather than building by hand.
Is it possible for 100% of situations? I don't know, because I haven't tried 100% of the situations. And in one case I haven't figured out yet (AUv3).
reply