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

161–170 of 200 posts

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#161

Post by chii »

LeoWattenberg wrote: post #56
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

Copy pasting code is allowed under LGPL, but doing so while removing license headers and attribution of code snippets would not be.

copy/pasting, or using some other mechanism to do digital duplication is irrelevant - the removal of the existing license and essentially _re-license_ without authority is the problem, no matter what the mechanism of including the code is.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#162

Post by array_key_first »

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?

Right, but what incentives are we really pushing here?

If the only way to make any amount of money or, at least, not be stolen from, is to keep everything internal and be protectionist, then where is the progress?

So much of the modern world is built on open source. Do we really want every company and their mom recreating the world from scratch just so they don't get fucked over? Would things like the iPhone even exist in such a world?

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#163

Post by tkel »

rendaw wrote: post #151
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.

Yes it's not loading on the archive but I was following the thread closely, it was said recently within the last few months which prompted further discussion and this action by ffmpeg.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#164

Post by fl0id »

helterskelter wrote: post #117
mystraline wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were given 1.5 YEARS of lead time. And FLOSS should treat commercial entities the same way they treat us. Seriously, if we copied in violation their code, how many hours would pass before a DMCA violation? FLOSS should be dictatorial in application of the license. After all, its basically free to use and remix as long as you follow the easy rules. I'm also on the same boat that Android phone creators should also…

My understanding is that the GPL doesn't have fucktons of precedent behind it in court. You bet the house on a big case and lose, the precedent will stick with GPL and may even weaken all copyleft licenses. Also, it's better to gently apply pressure and set a track record of violators taking corrective measures so when you end up in court one day you've got a list of people and corporate entities which do comply beca…

AFAIK it has enough precedent (also depending a bit on jurisdiction, but you only need one) but the interpretations of what that/the license should cover differ. Like f e if you wanted to argue driver devs would have to open-source their firmware blobs or their proprietary driver loaded by a kernel shim you will have a tough time and prob lose

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#166

Post by abigail95 »

koolba wrote: post #27
dzhiurgis wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Completely depends on how much you've "mixed in", and facts specific to that individual work.

Fair use doesn't get thrown out the window because GPL authors have a certain worldview.

Second, there are a lot of non-copyrightable components to source code - if you can't copyright it - you certainly can't GPL it. These can be copied freely by anyone at any time.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#167

Post by justinclift »

rvnx wrote: post #55
kelnos wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why didn't Rockchip solve it in 10 minutes?

Bad decision and risk/reward calculation for sure. If it's code that is core to your stuff, and it is GPL'd, it's (technically) very tricky to solve. But here, as FFmpeg is LGPL and we talk about one single file, there is even less work to do in order to fix that.

Yeah, Rockchip seems to have screwed up badly but as per the GitHub DCMA notice:

https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2025/12/2025-12-1...

> ... the offending repository maintainers were informed of the problem almost 2 years ago ([private]), and did nothing to resolve it. Worse, their last comment ([private]) suggests they do not intend to resolve it at all.

Seems like the reporter gave them a lot of time to fix the problem, then when it because obvious (to them) that it was never going to be fixed they took an appropriate next step.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#168

Post by justinclift »

progval wrote: post #122
amszmidt wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the link; sadly none of the links to the repo can be viewed to see what exactly occurred. To those downvoting, curious why? Many of the links are not viewable, since GitHub hides them, so any discussion becomes quite tricky.

You can find an archive of the links' targets at https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:5861f19187336...

Interestingly, the repo has a LICENSES folder that contains the text of the licenses used in the repo:

https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/directory/ed4b20...

And yep, they only included the most openly permissive ones there (APL2 and MIT), completely skipping everything else. Ugh.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#169

Post by rvnx »

ksec wrote: post #147
windexh8er wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 )

The sentence is actually just in the comment below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46396107

You are right, and the FFmpeg devs are also 100% right and I perfectly understand that.

In fact I like the idea to push the big corps and strongly enforce devs' rights.

I think earlier enforcement would have been beneficial here, just that dropping a bomb after 1 year of silence and no reminder (and we still don't know if that was the case), is a bit unpredictable, so I wanted to raise that question

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#170

Post by 7bit »

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…

> I hate doing the whole whataboutism thing [...], but...

... yet, you did it anyway, without going into detail or providing any clue where these violations (as you claim) are.

If there's any substance to what you say, provide some details and proof, so it can be a constructive discussion, rather than just noise.

Post reply on HN