Time to create a decentralized, blockchain-based GitHub (GitCoin?) and have every commit be a transaction on the chain. Nothing would ever be takedownable.
FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
31–40 of 200 posts
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
They had ample warning and ignored the license. what you're even on about?
[flagged]
That's bullshit. The FFmpeg devs were well within their rights to even send a DMCA takedown notice, immediately, without asking nicely first.
This is what big corporations do to the little guys, so we owe big corporations absolutely nothing more.
They gave Rockchip a year and a half to fix it. It is the responsibility of Rockchip to take care of it once they were originally notified, and the FFmpeg dvelopers have no responsibility to babysit the Rockchip folks while they fulfill their legal obligations.
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Then why didn't Rockchip solve it in 10 minutes?
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#34Earlier 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…
Your original comment had this at the end...
> - Rockchip's code is gone > - FFmpeg gets nothing back > - Community loses whatever improvements existed > - Rockchip becomes an adversary, not a partner
This is all conjecture which is probably why you deleted it.
Their code isn't gone (unless they're managing their code in all the wrong ways), FFmpeg sends a message to a for-profit violation of their code, the community gets to see the ignorance Rockchip puts into the open source partnership landscape and finally... If Rockchip becomes an adversary of one of the most popular and notable OSS that they take advantage of, again, for profit then fuck Rockchip. They're not anything here other than a violator of a license and they've had plenty of warning and time to fix.
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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.
To be clear: Rockchip is at fault, 100%. I would sue (and obv DMCA) any company who takes my code and refuses to attribute it.
If you immediately escalate to [DMCA / court] because they refuse to fix, then that's very fair, but suddenly like 2 years after silence (if, and only if that was the case, because maybe they spoke outside of Twitter/X), then it's odd.
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#36Not familiar with Rockchip. Plenty of searches come up with cases of people incorporating ffmpeg into Rockchip projects. I still see the license files and headers. What is different with this DMCA takedown?
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
That's bullshit. The FFmpeg devs were well within their rights to even send a DMCA takedown notice, immediately, without asking nicely first. This is what big corporations do to the little guys, so we owe big corporations absolutely nothing more. They gave Rockchip a year and a half to fix it. It is the responsibility of Rockchip to take care of it once they were originally notified, and the FFmpeg dvelopers have no…
[deleted]
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's stopping you from making the archive link yourself?
I'd like to learn but I can't find a guide on how to do it. Could you please share one?
Go to https://archive.is and paste the URL into the box.
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#39I wonder how this will work with AI stuff generating code without any source or attribution. It’s not like the LLMs make this stuff up out of thin air it comes from source material.
Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
#40The 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
Incorporating compatible code, under different license is perfectly OK and each work can have different license, while the whole combined work is under the terms of another.
I'm honestly quite confused what FFmpeg is objecting to here, if ILoveRockchip wrote code, under a compatible license (which Apache 2.0 is wrt. LGPLv2+ which FFmpeg is licensed under) -- then that seems perfectly fine.
The repository in question is of course gone. Is it that ILoveRockchip claims that they wrote code that was written FFmpeg? That is bad, and unrelated to any license terms, or license compatibility ... just outright plagiarism.