4 ms·

Incorporating compatible code, under different license is perfectly OK and each work can have different license, while the whole combined work is under the term

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 9mo ago
The DMCA notice is available here: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2025/12/2025-12-18-ffmpeg.md 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 9mo ago
  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.
  - kstrauser 9mo ago
    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.
  - progval 9mo ago
    You can find an archive of the links' targets at https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:5861f191873366a1a6b18bdeacee9a55d2d8cb49;origin=https://github.com/rockchip-linux/mpp;visit=swh:1:snp:65c3ea2995fea50c556ae4fc2305e6b2bad6e4a3;anchor=swh:1:rev:437bfbeb9567cca9cd9080e3f6954aa9d6a94f18;path=/mpp/codec/dec/ https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:5861f19187336...
    - justinclift 9mo ago
      Interestingly, the repo has a LICENSES folder that contains the text of the licenses used in the repo: https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/directory/ed4b20403539eaf089df673d36013b4ecabceecb/?origin_url=https://github.com/rockchip-linux/mpp&path=LICENSES&revision=437bfbeb9567cca9cd9080e3f6954aa9d6a94f18&snapshot=65c3ea2995fea50c556ae4fc2305e6b2bad6e4a3 https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/directory/ed4b20... And yep, they only included the most openly permissive ones there (APL2 and MIT), completely skipping everything else. Ugh.
  - nottorp 9mo ago
    Maybe because if the ffmpeg people say they have a reason and they've waited 1 year and a half for compliance, we trust them more than whoever relicensed their code without permission.

papercrane 9mo ago

The DMCA notice is available here: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2025/12/2025-12-18-ffmpeg.md 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 9mo ago
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.
- kstrauser 9mo ago
  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.
- progval 9mo ago
  You can find an archive of the links' targets at https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:5861f191873366a1a6b18bdeacee9a55d2d8cb49;origin=https://github.com/rockchip-linux/mpp;visit=swh:1:snp:65c3ea2995fea50c556ae4fc2305e6b2bad6e4a3;anchor=swh:1:rev:437bfbeb9567cca9cd9080e3f6954aa9d6a94f18;path=/mpp/codec/dec/ https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:5861f19187336...
  - justinclift 9mo ago
    Interestingly, the repo has a LICENSES folder that contains the text of the licenses used in the repo: https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/directory/ed4b20403539eaf089df673d36013b4ecabceecb/?origin_url=https://github.com/rockchip-linux/mpp&path=LICENSES&revision=437bfbeb9567cca9cd9080e3f6954aa9d6a94f18&snapshot=65c3ea2995fea50c556ae4fc2305e6b2bad6e4a3 https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/directory/ed4b20... And yep, they only included the most openly permissive ones there (APL2 and MIT), completely skipping everything else. Ugh.
- nottorp 9mo ago
  Maybe because if the ffmpeg people say they have a reason and they've waited 1 year and a half for compliance, we trust them more than whoever relicensed their code without permission.