[HN Gopher] FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
___________________________________________________________________
FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub
Author : merlindru
Score : 314 points
Date : 2025-12-26 17:48 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| merlindru wrote:
| 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
| a_void_sky wrote:
| they waited for more than 1.5 years and they did not forgot
| mystraline wrote:
| 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 be providing source fully, and
| should be confiscated on import for failure of copyright
| violations.
|
| But ive seen FLOSS devs be like "let's be nice". Tit for tat
| is the best game theory so far. Time to use it.
| ajross wrote:
| That's not it. The LGPL doesn't require dynamic linking, just
| that any distributed artifacts be _able to be used_ with
| derived versions of the LGPL code. Distributing buildable
| source under Apache 2.0 would surely qualify too.
|
| The problem here isn't a technical violation of the LGPL, it's
| that Rockchip doesn't own the copyright to FFMPEG and simply
| doesn't have the legal authority to release it under any
| license other than the LGPL. What they should have done is put
| their modified FFMPEG code into a forked project, clearly label
| it with an LGPL LICENSE file, and link against that.
| FpUser wrote:
| How does
|
| "Distributing buildable source under Apache 2.0 would surely
| qualify too"
|
| reconcile with
|
| "doesn't own the copyright to FFMPEG and simply doesn't have
| the legal authority to release it under any license other
| than the LGPL"
| 8note wrote:
| if they licenced their own code under apache 2.0 as
| buildable with the lgpl ffmeg code, without relicensing
| ffmeg as apache itself
| dtech wrote:
| You can distribute your own code under Apache along with
| FFMpeg under LGPL in one download
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| What happens when you want to mix two libraries with different
| licences?
| koolba wrote:
| 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.
| Hendrikto wrote:
| Some licenses, like LGPL, have provisions for this, some just
| forbid it.
|
| In the specific ffmpeg case, you are allowed to dynamically
| link against it from a project with an incompatible license.
| kelnos wrote:
| You determine if the licenses are compatible first. If they
| are, you're fine, as long as you fulfill the terms of both
| licenses.
|
| If they aren't compatible, then you can't use them together,
| so you have to find something else, or build the
| functionality yourself.
| wmf wrote:
| You should keep them in different directories and have the
| appropriate license for each directory. You can have a top-
| level LICENSE file explaining the situation.
| patmorgan23 wrote:
| You dynamicly link against it
| amszmidt wrote:
| Incorporating compatible code, under different license is
| perfectly OK and each work can have different license, while
| the whole combined work is under the terms of another.
|
| I'm honestly quite confused what FFmpeg is objecting to here,
| if ILoveRockchip wrote code, under a compatible license (which
| Apache 2.0 is wrt. LGPLv2+ which FFmpeg is licensed under) --
| then that seems perfectly fine.
|
| The repository in question is of course gone. Is it that
| ILoveRockchip claims that they wrote code that was written
| FFmpeg? That is bad, and unrelated to any license terms, or
| license compatibility ... just outright plagiarism.
| papercrane wrote:
| 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.
| amszmidt wrote:
| 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.
| LeoWattenberg wrote:
| Copy pasting code is allowed under LGPL, but doing so while
| removing license headers and attribution of code snippets would
| not be.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| 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.
| nikitalita wrote:
| someone post an archive link, I can't read that
| nticompass wrote:
| Does this work for you?
| https://xcancel.com/FFmpeg/status/2004599109559496984
| antonvs wrote:
| Is working around accessing an embargoed site really any
| better than just accessing it directly? Morally, what's the
| difference?
|
| If everyone just actively boycotted that site, it would
| become irrelevant overnight. Anything else is simply
| condoning it continued existence. Don't kid yourself.
| perryprog wrote:
| The issue is that you need an account to view the replies,
| not that there's a moral opposition to visiting the website
| (though it could be that too).
| antonvs wrote:
| Oops, I mistook people looking for free content for
| people with a moral compass.
| darkamaul wrote:
| Xlssid
| JCattheATM wrote:
| What's stopping you from making the archive link yourself?
| Tom1380 wrote:
| I'd like to learn but I can't find a guide on how to do it.
| Could you please share one?
| stavros wrote:
| Go to https://archive.is and paste the URL into the box.
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| https://xcancel.com/FFmpeg/status/2004599109559496984
| LargoLasskhyfv wrote:
| Clash of cultures.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanzhai#Regulation vs. the Gui Zi
| Gui Lao Lao Wai
| anonnon wrote:
| Not a fan of the CCP, but GH in general has a big problem with
| users not understanding and respecting licensing and passing
| off others' code as their own, sometimems unintentionally,
| often not.
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| https://xcancel.com/FFmpeg/status/2004599109559496984
| dheera wrote:
| Time to create a decentralized, blockchain-based GitHub
| (GitCoin?) and have every commit be a transaction on the chain.
| Nothing would ever be takedownable.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| The cost would be incredible even for just a pointer to
| distributed file storage
| odie5533 wrote:
| Github stores about 19 PB. That would cost about $20k a year
| on Filecoin. Filecoin currently has more supply than demand
| because it's speculation-driven right now.
| dheera wrote:
| There wouldn't be an org maintaining it. You would just buy
| $100 worth of GitCoin and that would be enough for 10000
| commits, or something like that.
| LeoWattenberg wrote:
| I mean, torrenting is decentralised and not technically
| takedownable. But it was entirely possible to make it legally
| painful for people involved in it, as seen in eg. The Pirate
| Bay, megaupload or an entire cease-and-desist letter industry
| around individual torrenting users
|
| Intentional noncompliance with copyright law can get you quite
| a distance, but there's a lot of money involved, so if you ever
| catch the wrong kind of attention, usually by being too
| successful, you tend to get smacked.
| zzo38computer wrote:
| Git already has a blockchain; what you will need to do next is
| to make copies of the objects of the repositories on other
| servers as well. (However, I don't know if the blockchain
| includes tags on git (it seems to me that it might not but I
| don't know enough about it), although it does include objects.
| Fossil includes tags in the blockchain as well as files,
| commits, etc.)
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| 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.
| ycombinatrix wrote:
| git already uses a blockchain lol
| firesteelrain wrote:
| 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
| hogrug wrote:
| The one you reference doesn't look like it misrepresents the
| licenses, i.e. of you use it to make your own derivative you
| would expect to have to share modifications you make to the
| LGPL code.
| bfrog wrote:
| 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.
| userbinator wrote:
| Everything is a derivative work.
| alienbaby wrote:
| Llm's do not verbatim disgorge chunks of the code they were
| trained on.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| Surely they do sometimes?
| observationist wrote:
| Best case scenario is it nukes the whole concept of software
| patents and the whole ugly industry of copyright hoarding. The
| idea that perpetual rent-seeking is a natural extension and
| intended outcome of the legal concepts of copyrights and
| patents is bizarre.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| 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.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Alright, love it. Who do I donate to?
| cryptica wrote:
| The law doesn't seem to work anymore. There are so many cases
| where someone can do illegal stuff in plain sight and nothing can
| be done about it. Not everyone has tens of thousands or hundreds
| of thousands of dollars to spare to get a lawyer. By the time you
| manage to save up the money, you realize that this system is
| absolutely crooked and that you don't trust it to obtain justice
| anyway even with the lawyers and even if you are legally in the
| right.
|
| The law exists mostly to oppress. It's exactly the argument that
| gun proponents make "Only the good guys obey gun laws, so only
| the bad guys have guns."
|
| All the good guys are losing following the law, all the bad guys
| are winning by violating the law. Frankly, at this stage, they
| write the laws.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| So here we have the good guys using the law and ... at least
| temporarily ... winning... so what's your point?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-12-26 23:00 UTC)