A GitHub repository maintained by Rockchip has been disabled following a DMCA takedown request filed by a contributor to the FFmpeg project. The company was informed about the problem nearly two years ago, but despite repeated assurances, it has still taken no action to resolve it. In the end, the expected happened.

The complaint alleges that Rockchip’s Media Process Platform (MPP) repository contains multiple files derived directly from FFmpeg’s libavcodec codebase and that the reuse violates the terms of the LGPL license under which FFmpeg is distributed.

For those unfamiliar, Rockchip is a Chinese semiconductor company best known for designing system-on-chip platforms widely used in single-board computers, Android devices, media players, and embedded Linux systems.

all 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 36 points 10 months ago
[–] 15 points 10 months ago

We really need a better answer to stuff like this than DMCA takedowns. They make sense for someone who doesn't want their stuff made available at all, but it's kinda the opposite of what's needed for copyleft violations.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago

    Waiting 2 years seems so gracious, I couldn't even fault them if they did it nearly immediately either.

  • source
  • 14 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 67 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    How do you even manage to break LGPL lmao all it asks for is attribution, which is like a few line changes on your LICENSE file.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 96 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Relevant bit

    The DMCA filing states that several files in the Rockchip MPP repository are derived from FFmpeg’s libavcodec sources. It lists AV1, H.265, and VP9 decoder files, and claims the copied code is clear because of matching structure, comments, and commented-out calls to FFmpeg functions with their original names.

    Much of FFmpeg, including libavcodec, uses the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1. This license allows reuse, but only if certain rules are followed. These rules include keeping copyright notices, giving proper credit, and ensuring any shared code remains under an LGPL-compatible license.

    The DMCA notice says Rockchip broke these rules by removing the original copyright and author details, claiming the copied code as their own, and sharing it under the Apache license, which does not meet LGPL requirements here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 10 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 27 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I just wish each video decoder manufacturer didn't feel the need to create their own API that isn't supported by anything.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago

    It feels counter productive when everyone relies on ffmpeg and there are no proprietary secrets left to protect. Just agree on an open standard that saves time and effort for all companies using it while getting tons of goodwill and positive cosmic vibes and maybe even revenue.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -13 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Does this accomplish anything? Was anyone actually relying on this? I'd say the company was just doing it just to publish it, but I've known developers who would certainly use the public repo as the primary copy.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago

    I believe it does. Weakly reciprocal license like LGPL is not equivalent as a permissive license like Apache. I see two main things on the top of my head:

    1. This ensure that no one can license wash ffmpg and e.g. use rockchip's repo to distribute their own private product based on ffmpeg without publishing their changes
    2. It ensures proper attribution of the work, which can have an impact on the developer's careers and ffmpeg as a whole.

    On top of this, it really should not be complicated to license this code properly (unless rockchip wants to allow point 1, which is illegal)

  • source
  • parent