Earlier quoted context omitted.
They had ample warning and ignored the license. what you're even on about?
[flagged]
The amount of armchair quarterbacking here is wild.
FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
21–30 of 200 posts
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
They had ample warning and ignored the license. what you're even on about?
[flagged]
Deadline and reminders? They aren't teachers and Rockchip isn't a student, they are the victims here and Rockchip is the one at fault. Let's stop literally victim blaming them for how they responded.
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The amount of armchair quarterbacking here is wild.
Then waiting to see how they addressed these points and what were the approaches taken and why ?
Here spent time to think and document all the IRC chats, the Twitter thread, the attitude of the SoC manufacturer, etc.
There has to be a backstory to suddenly come after 1.5 years for an issue that could have been solved in 10 minutes.
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#24The 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
What happens when you want to mix two libraries with different licences?
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#25Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#26someone post an archive link, I can't read that
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#27The 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
What happens when you want to mix two libraries with different licences?
If you own one of them, mix in LGPL code, and publish it, the result is entirely LGPL.
If you don’t own it and cannot legally relicense part as LGPL, you’re not allowed to publish it.
Just because you can merge someone else’s code does not mean you’re legally allowed to do so.
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#28Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#29The 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
What happens when you want to mix two libraries with different licences?
Some licenses, like LGPL, have provisions for this, some just forbid it.
In the specific ffmpeg case, you are allowed to dynamically link against it from a project with an incompatible license.
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#30The 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
What happens when you want to mix two libraries with different licences?
You determine if the licenses are compatible first. If they are, you're fine, as long as you fulfill the terms of both licenses.
If they aren't compatible, then you can't use them together, so you have to find something else, or build the functionality yourself.