Speaker unverified: belief

Transcript context

…Can you explain the XZ fiasco? The FFmpeg tweet reads, “The XZ fiasco has shown how a dependence on unpaid volunteers can cause major problems. Trillion-dollar corporations expect free and urgent support from volunteers. Microsoft Teams posted on a bug tracker full of volunteers that their issue is high priority. 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. We didn’t make it up. This is what Microsoft Teams actually did.” And then you give the image and the details and all that kind of stuff, showing that these trillion-dollar companies are not giving much money, not giving much support. They think an open source project is a traditional vendor that they have an SLA. They think a public bug tracker is actually, you know, a third-party vendor’s Jira where you can do all of these things. It’s not. It is there to report bugs. I think the thing that made this particularly heinous was the name-dropping of Microsoft, the name-dropping that this is a visible product. If this was just a general bug report, I think that would have made it a lot better. Yeah, so they literally said, like, “This is a big deal because a lot of people are using it in Microsoft.” I wonder what happens psychologically. So I think what happens in these companies, maybe you can correct me, is they… You’re right. They just think of FFmpeg as like a vendor that Microsoft surely is paying a huge amount of money to. They kind of assume that in their interaction, and nobody anywhere on the stack is going like, “Wait a minute. Shouldn’t we be giving like millions of dollars to FFmpeg?”…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.