- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Most people are unaware that even open source projects have licenses: Permissive license, Strong Copyleft, Weak Copyleft etc.
Some resources:
And all those licenses rely on copyright and IP law.
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.
Cut and paste source code into your repo, which you can do, then offer the whole thing under apache which you cannot do.
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.
Sounds like something they should easily be able to comply with. If the relevant ticket in their internal issue tracker is given priority. 😅
Maybe. They cut and pasted the other guys stuff who knows what other stuff is there
They’re Chinese, they ain’t bothering to read and change the License (especially if they don’t have many english-speaking devs)
I didn’t look into how the code is used, but LGPL can still easily get an entire project.
I just wish each video decoder manufacturer didn’t feel the need to create their own API that isn’t supported by anything.
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.
