FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Nature of the violation

  • The removed repo allegedly copy‑pasted FFmpeg source files, stripped FFmpeg’s copyright and license notices, added its own copyright claims, and declared the code Apache 2.0.
  • Commenters stress this is not about static vs dynamic linking, but about relicensing code you don’t own and removing attribution.
  • The DMCA notice lists specific files said to be copied from FFmpeg; archives show only permissive licenses (Apache, MIT) included in the repo, not LGPL.

LGPL/GPL and license compatibility

  • Multiple replies correct the misconception that LGPL requires dynamic linking; it requires users be able to modify/replace the LGPL’d component (dynamic linking is one common way).
  • It is fine to distribute Apache‑licensed code alongside LGPL code, or even in one download, as long as both licenses remain intact and no one pretends to relicense LGPL code.
  • Discussion touches on combining multiple licenses: you must satisfy all applicable terms; if licenses are incompatible, you simply can’t legally combine the works.

Enforcement strategy and timing

  • Some argue FFmpeg was right to be “dictatorial” after giving ~1.5–2 years of warnings that were effectively brushed off.
  • Others wish there had been earlier or gentler enforcement to preserve the Rockchip code as a potential collaboration.
  • Several point out there was not “silence”: a public GitHub issue had ongoing complaints; Rockchip repeatedly delayed, citing workload.

Rockchip, culture, and OSS relations

  • Some frame this as a “clash of cultures,” suggesting more flexible attitudes toward IP in parts of China, though others say this is just straightforward license abuse seen globally.
  • Skeptics argue you can’t “partner” with an entity that ignores licenses and only responds under threat.

DMCA, takedowns, and decentralization

  • Clarification that GitHub must remove content on a facially valid DMCA notice but does not adjudicate the claim; counter‑notices and courts handle disputes.
  • A side thread proposes a decentralized, blockchain‑style Git hosting to avoid takedowns; responses note cost, legal risk, and that git already has blockchain‑like properties.

AI code generation and copyright

  • Several speculate about parallels: LLMs emitting verbatim or near‑verbatim code from training data would raise similar copyright issues.
  • Examples are given of tools like Copilot or ChatGPT reproducing identifiable code chunks; debate centers on how much reproduction crosses a legal line and how to define that threshold.

Broader views on law, IP, and FOSS

  • Some express strong support for strict copyleft enforcement, seeing this as defending developers from commercial free‑riding.
  • Others are broadly cynical about copyright, patents, and legal systems, portraying them as favoring large actors and being inconsistently applied.
  • A brief “whataboutism” claim that FFmpeg itself violates patents is challenged; commenters distinguish patents from copyright and note GPLv3’s patent clauses.