FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub • Hacker News Board

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#141

Post by waste_monk » Sat, Dec 27, 2025, 3:50 AM UTC

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #64

dheera wrote: post #31

Time to create a decentralized, blockchain-based GitHub (GitCoin?) and have every commit be a transaction on the chain. Nothing would ever be takedownable.

Yes, using blockchain to defraud the GPL. Checks out sufficiently dystopian, yep. If you could work some gratuitous LLM in there, we could be a little closer to torment-nexus territory. Keep working at it.

Ooh, how about instead of being able to author a commit message, you're forced to let an LLM write it for you based on the diff since last commit. And that the LLM runs distributed on the blockchain, so it's monstrously slow, and has to be paid for with a 'gas' analogue so there's huge transaction fees as well.

That's the most techbro-brained idea I could come up with.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#142

Post by asdfsa1314 » Sat, Dec 27, 2025, 3:51 AM UTC

Chinese is steal of coding, which can pop device company use ffmpeg, 有利有弊

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#143

Post by LeFantome » Sat, Dec 27, 2025, 3:53 AM UTC

meindnoch wrote: post #78

[flagged]

Capitalism has its downsides but one thing that it does better than all previous known systems is efficiently allocate resources that result in productivity. That is, it is the most efficient system we know.

Investment that does not result in utility for the investor leads to reduced investment. This is true regardless of if the “investment” is money or talent”.

Your suggestion that a system that allows people to ignore the price creators demand for their creations will be more efficient has been refuted over and over again throughout history.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#144

Post by LeFantome » Sat, Dec 27, 2025, 3:56 AM UTC

Nextgrid wrote: post #102

pico303 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I’m not smart enough to grasp all these flowery words, but is this suggesting if I spend a few years writing some code, you should get to copy it for your own interests and without compensating me as long as your sales and marketing is better than mine? I don’t think Rockchip learned from the ffmoeg code. They simply copied it outright without attribution.

> if I spend a few years writing some code, you should get to copy it for your own interests If you publish the code, there's an argument to be made that yes, others should freely use it: if you could (or did) monetize the code yourself you wouldn't publish it. If you didn't, or failed trying to monetize it, maybe it's better for society if everyone else also gets to try?

I do not even like the GPL but there are other forms of exchange other than monetary.

The license outlines the conditions of use. An argument could be made that ignoring the license means you are not paying the price specified.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#145

Post by tkel » Sat, Dec 27, 2025, 4:21 AM UTC

Here is the github thread which had some recent discussion before the repo was taken down. Rockchip said something like it would be too much work to fix the licenses for all the new chips they are creating.

https://web.archive.org/web/20251103193914/https://github.co...

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#146

Post by kelseyfrog » Sat, Dec 27, 2025, 4:23 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #136

kelseyfrog wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That is not good faith, my dude.

It sounds like you do care where it is then, no?

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#147

Post by ksec » Sat, Dec 27, 2025, 4:26 AM UTC

windexh8er wrote: post #34

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…

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 communit…

The OP deleted that sentence and I don't think it should have be flagged and unseen by others so I have vouched for it. I understand a lot of people disagree with it, and may downvote it but that is different to flagging. ( I have upvoted in just in case )

He offer perspective from a Chinese POV, so I think it is worth people reading it. ( Not that I agree with it in any shape or form )

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#148

Post by benced » Sat, Dec 27, 2025, 4:42 AM UTC

bfrog wrote: post #39

I 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.

I don't think anyone really disputes what should be done when an LLM violates copyright in a way that would be a violation if a human did it.

Questions about LLMs are primarily about whether it's legal for them to do something that would be legal for a human to do and secondarily about the technical feasibility of policing them at all.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#149

Post by doctorpangloss » Sat, Dec 27, 2025, 4:43 AM UTC

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

I like FFmpeg, I hate doing the whole whataboutism thing, especially because FFmpeg is plainly in the right here, but... listen, FFmpeg as a product is a bunch of license violations too. Something something patents, something something, "doctrine of unclean hands." I worry that HN downvotes people who are trying to address the bigger picture here, because the net result of a lack of nuance always winds up being, "Okay, the real winners are Google and Apple."

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#150

Post by kortilla » Sat, Dec 27, 2025, 4:50 AM UTC

doctorpangloss wrote: post #149

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

I like FFmpeg, I hate doing the whole whataboutism thing, especially because FFmpeg is plainly in the right here, but... listen, FFmpeg as a product is a bunch of license violations too. Something something patents, something something, "doctrine of unclean hands." I worry that HN downvotes people who are trying to address the bigger picture here, because the net result of a lack of nuance always winds up being, "Oka…

Independent implementations of an algorithm are a different dimension from software licensing. So the “unclean hands” argument doesn’t hold water here.

Patents != copyright