Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 200 posts

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#11

Post by rvnx »

ajross wrote: post #7
merlindru wrote: post #2

The 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…

Could there have been other / better moves with sending a reminder.

I think the devs of that Chinese company seemed to immediately acknowledge the attribution.

Now the OSS community loses the OSS code of IloveRockchip, and FFmpeg wins practically nothing, except recognition on a single file (that devs from Rockchip actually publicly acknowledged, though in a clumsy way) but loses in reputation and loses a commercial fork (and potential partner).

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#12

Post by FpUser »

ajross wrote: post #7
merlindru wrote: post #2

The 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…

How does

"Distributing buildable source under Apache 2.0 would surely qualify too"

reconcile with

"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"

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#13

Post by PunchyHamster »

rvnx wrote: post #11
ajross wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Could there have been other / better moves with sending a reminder. I think the devs of that Chinese company seemed to immediately acknowledge the attribution. Now the OSS community loses the OSS code of IloveRockchip, and FFmpeg wins practically nothing, except recognition on a single file (that devs from Rockchip actually publicly acknowledged, though in a clumsy way) but loses in reputation and loses a commercial…

They had ample warning and ignored the license. what you're even on about?

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#14

Post by 8note »

FpUser wrote: post #12
ajross wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How does "Distributing buildable source under Apache 2.0 would surely qualify too" reconcile with "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"

if they licenced their own code under apache 2.0 as buildable with the lgpl ffmeg code, without relicensing ffmeg as apache itself

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#16

Post by dtech »

FpUser wrote: post #12
ajross wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How does "Distributing buildable source under Apache 2.0 would surely qualify too" reconcile with "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"

You can distribute your own code under Apache along with FFMpeg under LGPL in one download

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#17

Post by superb_dev »

rvnx wrote: post #11
ajross wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Could there have been other / better moves with sending a reminder. I think the devs of that Chinese company seemed to immediately acknowledge the attribution. Now the OSS community loses the OSS code of IloveRockchip, and FFmpeg wins practically nothing, except recognition on a single file (that devs from Rockchip actually publicly acknowledged, though in a clumsy way) but loses in reputation and loses a commercial…

We are not going to loose anything. If it’s got a strong enough community then someone will publish a fork with the problem fixed

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#18

Post by Blackthorn »

rvnx wrote: post #11
ajross wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Could there have been other / better moves with sending a reminder. I think the devs of that Chinese company seemed to immediately acknowledge the attribution. Now the OSS community loses the OSS code of IloveRockchip, and FFmpeg wins practically nothing, except recognition on a single file (that devs from Rockchip actually publicly acknowledged, though in a clumsy way) but loses in reputation and loses a commercial…

How do you partner with someone who has so much contempt for you they ignore the license you've given them and, when called on it, simply ignore you?

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#19

Post by [deleted] »

dtech wrote: post #16
FpUser wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does "Distributing buildable source under Apache 2.0 would surely qualify too" reconcile with "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"

You can distribute your own code under Apache along with FFMpeg under LGPL in one download

[deleted]

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#20

Post by rvnx »

PunchyHamster wrote: post #13
rvnx wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could there have been other / better moves with sending a reminder. I think the devs of that Chinese company seemed to immediately acknowledge the attribution. Now the OSS community loses the OSS code of IloveRockchip, and FFmpeg wins practically nothing, except recognition on a single file (that devs from Rockchip actually publicly acknowledged, though in a clumsy way) but loses in reputation and loses a commercial…

They had ample warning and ignored the license. what you're even on about?

[flagged]
Post reply on HN