| ▲ | merlindru 8 hours ago |
| 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 |
|
| ▲ | LeoWattenberg 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Copy pasting code is allowed under LGPL, but doing so while removing license headers and attribution of code snippets would not be. |
|
| ▲ | ranger_danger 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | ajross 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License." They should be covered as an aggregation, provided the LGPL was intact. | |
| ▲ | FpUser 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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" | | |
| ▲ | dtech 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You can distribute your own code under Apache along with FFMpeg under LGPL in one download | | | |
| ▲ | 8note 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | if they licenced their own code under apache 2.0 as buildable with the lgpl ffmeg code, without relicensing ffmeg as apache itself |
| |
| ▲ | rvnx 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | Blackthorn 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How do you partner with someone who has so much contempt for you they ignore the license you've given them and, when called on it, simply ignore you? | |
| ▲ | windexh8er 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 community gets to see the ignorance Rockchip puts into the open source partnership landscape and finally... If Rockchip becomes an adversary of one of the most popular and notable OSS that they take advantage of, again, for profit then fuck Rockchip. They're not anything here other than a violator of a license and they've had plenty of warning and time to fix. | |
| ▲ | PunchyHamster 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They had ample warning and ignored the license. what you're even on about? | | |
| ▲ | rvnx 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | akerl_ 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The amount of armchair quarterbacking here is wild. | | |
| ▲ | rvnx 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Then waiting to see how they addressed these points and what were the approaches taken and why ? Here spent time to think and document all the IRC chats, the Twitter thread, the attitude of the SoC manufacturer, etc. There has to be a backstory to suddenly come after 1.5 years for an issue that could have been solved in 10 minutes. | | |
| ▲ | kelnos 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Then why didn't Rockchip solve it in 10 minutes? | | |
| ▲ | rvnx 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Blackthorn 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Deadline and reminders? They aren't teachers and Rockchip isn't a student, they are the victims here and Rockchip is the one at fault. Let's stop literally victim blaming them for how they responded. | | |
| ▲ | rvnx 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | To be clear: Rockchip is at fault, 100%. I would sue (and obv DMCA) any company who takes my code and refuses to attribute it. If you immediately escalate to [DMCA / court] because they refuse to fix, then that's very fair, but suddenly like 2 years after silence (if, and only if that was the case, because maybe they spoke outside of Twitter/X), then it's odd. | | |
| ▲ | akerl_ 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Maybe spend less time policing how other people are allowed to act, especially when you’re speculating wildly about the presence or content of communications | | |
| ▲ | rvnx 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's a call to push the devs to freely say what happened in the background, there are many hints at that "I wonder if...?" "What could have happened that it escalated?" "Why there were no public reminders, what happened in the back", etc, etc, nothing much, these questions are deliberately open. | | |
| ▲ | akerl_ 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Oh. Being rude and suggesting the devs made (in your opinion) a mistake based on your guess at their actions is not going to be an effective way to get them to elaborate on their legal strategy. Also it’s rude, which is reason enough not to do it. |
|
| |
| ▲ | michaelmrose 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In the adult world you don't get any warnings when you break the law. |
|
| |
| ▲ | kelnos 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's bullshit. The FFmpeg devs were well within their rights to even send a DMCA takedown notice, immediately, without asking nicely first. This is what big corporations do to the little guys, so we owe big corporations absolutely nothing more. They gave Rockchip a year and a half to fix it. It is the responsibility of Rockchip to take care of it once they were originally notified, and the FFmpeg dvelopers have no responsibility to babysit the Rockchip folks while they fulfill their legal obligations. | | |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | Fnoord 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah. This is like waiting 90 days before releasing a full disclosure on a vulnerability, and then complaining you could have contacted us and given us time, we only had 90 days now. Gaslighting 101. Those 90 days gives all those with a lot if resources and sitting on zero days (such as Cellebrite) time to play for free. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | superb_dev 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We are not going to loose anything. If it’s got a strong enough community then someone will publish a fork with the problem fixed | |
| ▲ | michaelmrose 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you have to hound them to stop breaking the law they were already an adversary and the easiest way to comply would be to simply follow the license in which case everyone wins |
|
|
|
| ▲ | amszmidt 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | a_void_sky 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| they waited for more than 1.5 years and they did not forgot |
| |
| ▲ | mystraline 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | helterskelter an hour ago | parent [-] | | 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 because they believed that the terms were clear enough, which would lend weight to your argument. Saying this as a GPL hardliner myself. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | dzhiurgis 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| What happens when you want to mix two libraries with different licences? |
| |
| ▲ | koolba 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | eqvinox an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | LeFantome 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This depends on the licenses. Copyleft licenses are designed to prevent you mixing code as the licenses are generally incompatible with mixing. More permissive license will generally allow you to mix licenses. This is why you can ship permissive code in a proprietary code base. As for linking, “weak copyleft” license allow you to link but not to “mix” code. This is essentially the point of the LGPL. | |
| ▲ | kelnos 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | Hendrikto 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | wmf 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You dynamicly link against it |
|
