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

181–190 of 200 posts

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#181

Post by GuB-42 »

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.

Only if the code you copy pasted the LGPL part into is licenced under a compatible license, and Apache is not.

The simplest way to comply while keeping your incompatible license is to isolate the LGPL part into a dynamic library, there are other ways, but it is by far the most common.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#182

Post by merlindru »

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.

this is accurate and how i should have phrased it. i should not have mentioned dynamic linking; you're right it's not relevant

thank you!

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#183

Post by merlindru »

ranger_danger wrote: post #69
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

LGPL does not mandate dynamic linking, it mandates the ability to re-assemble a new version of the library. This might mean distributing object files in the case of a statically-linked application, but it is still allowed by the license.

this is accurate - thank you for the correction

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#184

Post by jimjimwii »

jalapenos wrote: post #165

Would be nice to live in a world where the stupidity of "intellectual property" and "copyright" had already been laughed out of the room. But alas we live in this one, the moral and legal equivalent of walking through a park covered in trash.

You largely have bill gates to thank. Code is math and anyone who insists otherwise is a personof questionable morals, intelligence, or both.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#185

Post by doctorpangloss »

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?

The ones that Microsoft Apple and Google pay for, the codec licenses. FFmpeg believes that only end users need licenses for codecs, which is not only their belief, but it’s not a belief of Microsoft, Apple and Google, and it is true the sense of the status quo, but also, LGPL violations are a status quo. So you can see how it’s a bad idea for FFmpeg to make a stink about licenses.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#186

Post by [deleted] »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #154
kelseyfrog wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

[deleted]

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#187

Post by nottorp »

firesteelrain wrote: post #179
nottorp wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So the comments explaining the situation from the HN community aren’t good enough?

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#188

Post by compsciphd »

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

this is fundamentally false. The LGPL was created because of static linking where GPLd code would be in the distributed binary.

It's an open question (the FSF has their opinion, but it has never been adjudicated) if the GPL impacts dynamic linking.

One could argue that if one ships GPL dynamic libraries together with one's non GPLd code, one is shipping an aggregate and hence the GPL infects the whole, but its more complicated to say if one ships a non GPLd binary that runs on Debian, Redhat et al and uses GPLd libraries that they ship.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#189

Post by firesteelrain »

nottorp wrote: post #187
firesteelrain wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So the comments explaining the situation from the HN community aren’t good enough?

If the repository were still accessible, the only thing I’d be looking for is whether the LGPL portions were modified or statically linked. Absent that, the license-based explanation makes sense.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#190

Post by alfiedotwtf »

throwaway150 wrote: post #126
eithed wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess who cares about civility if you're the last man standing. Also - that word: civility. We're animals driven by self-interest. What should civility even mean here

> We're animals driven by self-interest. What should civility even mean here That self-interest has led to cooperation between humans. Humans have evolved to work together, cooperate, form social bonds, and friendships because doing so improves survival and wellbeing over the long run. Civility is part of that toolkit. It is not a denial of self-interest. Civility is part of that self-interest.

Thank you, this is what I was trying to say… there are incentives to cooperate, even though individually we can be selfishly evil.
Post reply on HN