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

151–160 of 200 posts

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#151

Post by rendaw »

tkel wrote: post #145

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...

The archive isn't very good for the thread. Is that what they said though? From the comments I see they said "we're working on it, but we're busy with XYZ" and then months passed.

Archive won't load the remaining 3 items for me.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#152

Post by DANmode »

bobsmooth wrote: post #124
alienbaby wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Llm's do not verbatim disgorge chunks of the code they were trained on.

ChatGPT has given me code with comments so specific I found the original 6 year old github.

How long ago was this?

Doesn’t invalidate your story in the slightest - I just know they’ve gotta be chasing this, specifically, like it’s life or death.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#153

Post by viccis »

ranger_danger wrote: post #70
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.

Everything humans make up also comes from source material. The real (legal) question in either case, is how much is actually copied, and how obvious is it.

Not true. That's philosophical skepticism and was roundly refuted long ago.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#154

Post by Dylan16807 »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #146
Dylan16807 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not good faith, my dude.

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

I care that it's within the ballpark I spent considerable detail explaining. I don't care where inside the ballpark it is.

You gave an exaggerated upper limit, so extreme there's no ambiguity, of "entire repo".

I gave my own exaggerated upper limit, so extreme there's no ambiguity. And mine has examples of it actually happening. Incidents so extreme they're clear violations.

Maybe an analogy will help: The point at which a collection of sand grains becomes a heap is ambiguous. But when we have documented incidents involving a kilogram or more of sand in a conical shape, we can skip refining the threshold and simply declare that yes heaps are real. Incidents of major LLMs copying code, in a way that is full-on memorization and not just recreating things via chance and general code knowledge, are real.

You're the only person I've seen ever imply that true copying incidents are a statistical illusion, akin to a random die. Normally the debate is over how often and impactful they are, who is going to be held responsible, and what to do about them.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#155

Post by EagnaIonat »

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 wonder how this will work with AI stuff generating code without any source or attribution.

It's already fixed. Anything you make with AI cannot be protected in any way (UK gives some leeway on certain types of creations).

So if it mimics code from ffmpeg for example, then ffmpeg wins.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#157

Post by webstrand »

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…

What licenses are they violating?

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#158

Post by Nevermark »

eqvinox wrote: post #120
koolba wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is not correct; you're simply required to follow all applicable licenses at the same time. This may or may not be possible, but is in practice quite commonly done.

> Just because you can merge someone else’s code does not mean you’re legally allowed to do so.

> This may or may not be possible

I am not sure what you are saying, that is different from the comment you replied to.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#159

Post by [deleted] »

zmgsabst wrote: post #133
LeFantome wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot imagine it somehow impacts parents. Copyright and patents are completely independent concepts. The “perpetual” part is the issue but “rent seeking” is the entire reason that copyright and patents exist to begin with.

No — providing funding to promote creation and discovery is why those exist; granting a temporary monopoly is the mechanism meant to accomplish that goal. This sounds pedantic, but it’s important to not mistake the means for an end: > To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; https://cons…

[deleted]

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#160

Post by saghm »

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…

With the exception of the Apache license, most major licenses don't cover patents. I have no idea about proprietary licenses if that's what you're talking about here, but it's a bit unclear, so it might help to go into more details than "something something" if you're intending to make a compelling case.
Post reply on HN