FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
twitter.com
FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
1–10 of 200 posts
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#2The repo in question incorporated FFmpeg code while claiming their code is Apache 2.0-licensed over 1.5 years ago[1]
This is not allowed under the LGPL, which mandates dynamic linking against the library. They copy-pasted FFmpeg code into their repo instead.
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#3The repo in question incorporated FFmpeg code while claiming their code is Apache 2.0-licensed over 1.5 years ago[1] This is not allowed under the LGPL, which mandates dynamic linking against the library. They copy-pasted FFmpeg code into their repo instead. [1] https://x.com/HermanChen1982/status/1761230920563233137
they waited for more than 1.5 years and they did not forgot
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#4someone post an archive link, I can't read that
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#5someone post an archive link, I can't read that
Does this work for you? https://xcancel.com/FFmpeg/status/2004599109559496984
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#6The repo in question incorporated FFmpeg code while claiming their code is Apache 2.0-licensed over 1.5 years ago[1] This is not allowed under the LGPL, which mandates dynamic linking against the library. They copy-pasted FFmpeg code into their repo instead. [1] https://x.com/HermanChen1982/status/1761230920563233137
they waited for more than 1.5 years and they did not forgot
They were given 1.5 YEARS of lead time. And FLOSS should treat commercial entities the same way they treat us.
Seriously, if we copied in violation their code, how many hours would pass before a DMCA violation?
FLOSS should be dictatorial in application of the license. After all, its basically free to use and remix as long as you follow the easy rules. I'm also on the same boat that Android phone creators should also be providing source fully, and should be confiscated on import for failure of copyright violations.
But ive seen FLOSS devs be like "let's be nice". Tit for tat is the best game theory so far. Time to use it.
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#7The repo in question incorporated FFmpeg code while claiming their code is Apache 2.0-licensed over 1.5 years ago[1] This is not allowed under the LGPL, which mandates dynamic linking against the library. They copy-pasted FFmpeg code into their repo instead. [1] https://x.com/HermanChen1982/status/1761230920563233137
That's not it. The LGPL doesn't require dynamic linking, just that any distributed artifacts be able to be used with derived versions of the LGPL code. Distributing buildable source under Apache 2.0 would surely qualify too.
The problem here isn't a technical violation of the LGPL, it's that Rockchip doesn't own the copyright to FFMPEG and simply doesn't have the legal authority to release it under any license other than the LGPL. What they should have done is put their modified FFMPEG code into a forked project, clearly label it with an LGPL LICENSE file, and link against that.
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#8someone post an archive link, I can't read that
Does this work for you? https://xcancel.com/FFmpeg/status/2004599109559496984
Is working around accessing an embargoed site really any better than just accessing it directly? Morally, what's the difference?
If everyone just actively boycotted that site, it would become irrelevant overnight. Anything else is simply condoning it continued existence. Don't kid yourself.
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#9someone post an archive link, I can't read that
What's stopping you from making the archive link yourself?
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does this work for you? https://xcancel.com/FFmpeg/status/2004599109559496984
Is working around accessing an embargoed site really any better than just accessing it directly? Morally, what's the difference? If everyone just actively boycotted that site, it would become irrelevant overnight. Anything else is simply condoning it continued existence. Don't kid yourself.
The issue is that you need an account to view the replies, not that there's a moral opposition to visiting the website (though it could be that too).