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.

	▲	progval an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You can find an archive of the links' targets at https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:5861f19187336...
	▲	kstrauser 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I didn't downvote. I suspect people did because it sounded like you were defending ILoveRockchip's actions, based on either 1) not understanding what they did, and/or 2) not having access to the facts. People get snippy about abusing Free Software.