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

171–180 of 200 posts

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#171

Post by reedciccio »

webstrand wrote: post #157
doctorpangloss wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They don't violate licenses otherwise they would have been blown out of existence a long time ago, drown lawsuit after lawsuit.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#172

Post by mlrtime »

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.

100% my assumptions but:

They were never really working on it, they thought it would just go away. Maybe some junior/senior dev took a shot at it, gave a project plan and it went nowhere.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#173

Post by LeoWattenberg »

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…

Most licenses, EULAs, contracts and so on don't have much precedent in court. There's no reason to believe that GPL would fold once subjected to sufficiently crafty lawyers.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#174

Post by nottorp »

amszmidt wrote: post #51
papercrane wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DMCA notice is available here: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2025/12/2025-12-1... The notice has a list of files and says that they were copied from ffmpeg, removed the original copyright notice, added their own and licensed under the more permissive Apache license.

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.

Maybe because if the ffmpeg people say they have a reason and they've waited 1 year and a half for compliance, we trust them more than whoever relicensed their code without permission.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#175

Post by nottorp »

firesteelrain wrote: post #36

Not 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? https://github.com/nyanmisaka/ffmpeg-rockchip

That's because you can incorporate LGPL code into any project as long as you respect the license.

Rockchip is a hardware platform, what hardware the code runs on isn't relevant here.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#176

Post by Conan_Kudo »

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…

It definitely does have precedent in multiple jurisdictions. Heck, SFC just won against Vizio enforcing the GPL's terms in the US, and there have been previous wins in France and Germany.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#177

Post by Conan_Kudo »

saghm wrote: post #160
doctorpangloss wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The GNU v3 licenses all cover software patents too, and parts of FFmpeg are under those licenses too (though I guess not the code copied and subject to this takedown, which is LGPLv2.1+).

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#178

Post by ygombinador »

rvnx wrote: post #169
ksec wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

There hasn't been a year of silence. Multiple people from the community have continued bugging Rockchip to address the matter in a public issue on the now-gone Github repo. The idea of a potential DMCA claim was also brought.

All they could say was "we are too busy with the other 1000s chips we have, we will delay this indefinitely".

Ridiculous.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#179

Post by firesteelrain »

nottorp wrote: post #175
firesteelrain wrote: post #36

Not 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? https://github.com/nyanmisaka/ffmpeg-rockchip

That's because you can incorporate LGPL code into any project as long as you respect the license. Rockchip is a hardware platform, what hardware the code runs on isn't relevant here.

Since the link to the actual code is DMCA’d in Rockchip’s repository, anyone have a fork so we can form an opinion independently?

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#180

Post by conartist6 »

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…

I wish I could get defensive protection against the millions and millions of bad software parents out there. But there is no such thing.

Did you know that Facebook owns the patent on autocompletes? Yahoo owned it and Facebook bought it from them as kind of a privately owned nuclear weapon to create a doctrine of mutually assured destruction with other companies who own nuclear-weapons-grade patents.

Of course the penalty for violating a patent is much worse if you know you are doing it, so companies are very much not eager to have the additional liability that comes with their employees being aware that every autocomplete is a violation of patent law.

Post reply on HN