GitHub Takes Down Rockchip MPP Repository After FFmpeg Copyright Claim

Comments

• CaptainBasculin@lemmy.bascul.in ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  How do you even manage to break LGPL lmao all it asks for is attribution

  source

  • otter@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    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

    • avidamoeba@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Sounds like something they should easily be able to comply with.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    They’re Chinese, they ain’t bothering to read and change the License (especially if they don’t have many english-speaking devs)

    source
  • michaelmrose@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Cut and paste source code into your repo, which you can do, then offer the whole thing under apache which you cannot do.

    source
  • markz@suppo.fi ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    I didn’t look into how it’s part of their thing, but LGPL can still easily get their entire project.

    source
• punrca@piefed.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Most people are unaware that even open source projects have licenses: Permissive license, Strong Copyleft, Weak Copyleft etc.

  Some resources:
  1. https://web.archive.org/web/20240409042029/https://www.mend.io/blog/top-open-source-licenses-explained/
  2. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses
  3. https://fast.org/is-your-software-ip-really-your-ip/

  source

  • frongt@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    And all those licenses rely on copyright and IP law.

    source

    • 0x0@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      And all those global faceless multicorps requiring you to agree to their 200 page eula rely on those foss licensed goodness, without ever contributing an iota back to the source.

      source
• frongt@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  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

  • Scafir@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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