Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
mohebifar | on: Professional video editing, right in the browser with WebGPU and WASM
Free and open source NLE video editor powered by WGPU, WASM, WebGPU, Rust, and Tanstack Start
RobotToaster | parent | next
This is absolutely not an open source license https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/

It violates point 1,5 and 6 of the open source definition https://opensource.org/osd

flohofwoe | root | parent | next
For nitpicking like that let me do some counter-nitpicking: please write 'Open Source (OSI)', 'Open Source (TM)' or at least capitalize it as 'Open Source' so that people know where you're coming from. The commonly used 'open source' just means 'the source is in the open'. Let's not allow organizations to hijack commonly used words.
circuit10 | root | parent
It’s not nitpicking, the term “open source” is not usually used for this kind of thing, it would be called “shared source”

I did a poll on this on a Discord server a while ago

What does open source mean

You can view the source code: 0 votes

View + use + redistribute for any purpose: 14 votes

So no, your version of it is not the common usage

flohofwoe | root | parent
Was that the OSI discord server? ;) 14 votes in a specific bubble isn't all that representative either.
loading story #47480971
mohebifar | root | parent
You are absolutely right. I just changed the license to ELv2.
RobotToaster | root | parent | next
That isn't open source either.

As far as I know the most restrictive open source license is the AGPL, with a CLA that allows for commercial dual licensing.

bilekas | root | parent | next
ELv2 is not open source either.
guelo | root | parent
It is not OSI® Open Source Definition™ approved, but it is open source for the common use of the term.
TimeBearingDown | root | parent | next
The accepted term is "source available".

Restrictions on usage type are not commonly accepted as open source by any community that I'm aware of.

guelo | root | parent
That is according to OSI. OSI does not get to dictate the english language.
bilekas | root | parent
I don't say it to be pedantic about the term, but there are hard restrictions on usage of this tool in commercial environments.. So it's important people are aware and don't just assume it's an open source.
loading story #47480327
throawayonthe | root | parent | next
if you want to call it open source, why not consider AGPL?
Imustaskforhelp | root | parent | next
I genuinely recommend putting something like AGPL if you wish to go towards Open Source route.
dylan604 | parent | next
If you want free, Resolve will run circles around whatever open source thing you can find. No need for WGPU, it just runs the GPU.

Sadly, things like this just put a bad taste in my mouth about the whole concept of running code in a browser like this. It's buggy as hell. It doesn't run in all browsers. And I really have to ask why we think the browser is the place to run this. We've moved from Java and now to WASM in a browser, but only some browsers.

mashreghi | root | parent | next
Different use case. "Runs everywhere instantly" beats "installs + config" for a lot of workflows.
tim-projects | root | parent | next
In my experience getting it to run on my Intel gpu on Linux was not trivial. And when I did I discovered it doesn't support standard video formats making it a complete non starter.

Kdenlive is much better imho for basic edits

vunderba | root | parent | next
+1 for Davinci Resolve. I used the free version for years (Windows and Mac versions) before finally picking up a copy of Studio which is still very reasonably priced and is a flat fee.
hrmtst93837 | root | parent | next
Browser editing makes sense for review links, shared projects, and zero-install onboarding, but if the job is just cutting footage fast on one machine then a desktop app will smoke it and the compatibility mess buys you nothing. The browser sandbox is a decent distribution hack, yet once you stack WebGPU, WASM, codecs, file access, and browser-specific bugs on top of each other, you are rebuilding a worse native stack with extra failure modes and pretending that counts as progress. Resolve exists.
mashreghi | root | parent
If your baseline is Resolve, sure. But most people aren't cutting Hollywood timelines.
Fabricio20 | root | parent | next
Resolve requiring an account to download is what turned me away when I needed to do a quick edit the other day. Oracle much?
windowsrookie | root | parent | next
Black Magic gives video editing software that actual professionals use away for free. They sell professional grade equipment that regular consumers can afford. They also offer a ton of training videos teaching you how to edit professionally....for free. A ton of independent filmmakers have started their career using Black Magic software/devices.

They are absolutely not anything like oracle.

nullpoint420 | root | parent | next
I always put asdf@asdf.com and it lets me download it
motoxpro | root | parent | next
Why not just have a throwaway email account for these types of things. Opens up a lot of great software if this is a barrier for you.
ErroneousBosh | root | parent
It doesn't require an account to download.
RobotToaster | root | parent | next
I stopped trusting resolve after they decided to paywall reactor. Putting a paywall on plugins that users contribute for free is just shitty.
csomar | root | parent
> And I really have to ask why we think the browser is the place to run this.

This is a big barrier if you want cross-compatibility and making Linux usable for everyday people. My whole interface is a terminal and a browser. I could use/pay for something like this in the same way I use figma. I don't need an app and when I open my iPad I can access whatever I was working on.

The browser should have been the place to run all of this from the very start; but Apple/Google decided to create walled gardens for their systems.

empressplay | parent | next
I think you selected the wrong license. Your license currently as written actually forbids _using_ the software for a commercial purpose, eg if someone monetizes a video edited using your software, they are in violation of your license, which is not what you want.

Look at something like the Hashicorp BSL [1] for inspiration on crafting a license that forbids specific commercialization of the software itself.

[1] https://www.hashicorp.com/en/bsl

mohebifar | root | parent
You are right. Thanks for the insights! I just changed the license to ELv2.
esafak | parent
Any plugin plans? In case you don't know, there is a standard for it: https://openeffects.org/

Would you like to share your development experience? I suggest creating a CONTRIBUTING.md and enabling discussions if you are open to PRs.

mohebifar | root | parent | next
Great question! I actually have built a poc that is not released yet. It's on the roadmap. It requires some tooling for the devs building these plugins like a CLI for building the WASM binaries, bundling, manifests, etc.

The current poc still has significant performance overhead, and that overhead grows as the plugin system becomes more powerful. If plugins are only allowed to apply a WGSL shader, the performance impact is almost negligible. But features that require broader access to timeline data, such as time shifts, speed ramps, or full timeline transformations, become much more expensive and make zero-copy architectures harder to reason about.

| root | parent
{"deleted":true,"id":47472627,"parent":47472553,"time":1774135590,"type":"comment"}
mohebifar | root | parent
I added CONTRIBUTING.md. I also took a look at OpenFX. My current view is that supporting OFX in the browser would be hard, since the standard and its existing tooling are not designed around wgpu or browser execution. Tooscut would likely need its own plugin model rather than adopting OFX as is.

That said, I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts if you are open to contributing or discussing what a practical plugin system should look like in this environment. Please file a GitHub issue if you can

loading story #47477631