"Distributing buildable source under Apache 2.0 would surely qualify too"
reconcile with
"doesn't own the copyright to FFMPEG and simply doesn't have the legal authority to release it under any license other than the LGPL"
There were opportunities to take advantage of this.
The FFmpeg devs saw the violation, even laughed about how funny it was, then they tweeted, so the initial drama is originally not that big.
They pointed it out to Rockchip; immediately the developers from Rockchip answered (which is quite rare for big companies!):
Herman Chen: "I apologize... lack of understanding on conflict between Apache and LGPL. We will replace these code in future update. And do more homework on open source license."
FFmpeg: "Thank you for your message"
If after these reminders, they don't know how to do, and you want them to do something, you can educate them:
A) Fork the FFmpeg repo
B) Move your file to that repo
C) Create a Makefile that will build a .so with that file only
D) Link that .so to your project
If they refuse to comply, that justifies DMCA. But nothing indicates refusal in the public communications.
About the 1.5 years: silence != patience.
"We gave them time" is not the same as "we gave them a deadline and reminders" or "we communicated and they refused."
Imagine this: you buy me lunch, and I did not pay you back.
You: "Hey, you owe me 10 USD for lunch."
Me: "Oh sorry, I misunderstood! I'll pay you back."
You: "Thanks for your message."
Two years later, you take me to small claims court for 500 USD. That's not patience. That's setting someone up to fail.
Now, still:
- Rockchip's code is gone
- FFmpeg gets nothing back
- Community loses whatever improvements existed
- Rockchip becomes an adversary, not a partner
Here spent time to think and document all the IRC chats, the Twitter thread, the attitude of the SoC manufacturer, etc.
There has to be a backstory to suddenly come after 1.5 years for an issue that could have been solved in 10 minutes.
But here, as FFmpeg is LGPL and we talk about one single file, there is even less work to do in order to fix that.
https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2025/12/2025-12-1...
> ... the offending repository maintainers were informed of the problem almost 2 years ago ([private]), and did nothing to resolve it. Worse, their last comment ([private]) suggests they do not intend to resolve it at all.
Seems like the reporter gave them a lot of time to fix the problem, then when it because obvious (to them) that it was never going to be fixed they took an appropriate next step.
If you immediately escalate to [DMCA / court] because they refuse to fix, then that's very fair, but suddenly like 2 years after silence (if, and only if that was the case, because maybe they spoke outside of Twitter/X), then it's odd.
Also it’s rude, which is reason enough not to do it.
This is what big corporations do to the little guys, so we owe big corporations absolutely nothing more.
They gave Rockchip a year and a half to fix it. It is the responsibility of Rockchip to take care of it once they were originally notified, and the FFmpeg dvelopers have no responsibility to babysit the Rockchip folks while they fulfill their legal obligations.
> - Rockchip's code is gone > - FFmpeg gets nothing back > - Community loses whatever improvements existed > - Rockchip becomes an adversary, not a partner
This is all conjecture which is probably why you deleted it.
Their code isn't gone (unless they're managing their code in all the wrong ways), FFmpeg sends a message to a for-profit violation of their code, the community gets to see the ignorance Rockchip puts into the open source partnership landscape and finally... If Rockchip becomes an adversary of one of the most popular and notable OSS that they take advantage of, again, for profit then fuck Rockchip. They're not anything here other than a violator of a license and they've had plenty of warning and time to fix.
He offer perspective from a Chinese POV, so I think it is worth people reading it. ( Not that I agree with it in any shape or form )
You are right, and the FFmpeg devs are also 100% right and I perfectly understand that.
In fact I like the idea to push the big corps and strongly enforce devs' rights.
I think earlier enforcement would have been beneficial here, just that dropping a bomb after 1 year of silence and no reminder (and we still don't know if that was the case), is a bit unpredictable, so I wanted to raise that question
All they could say was "we are too busy with the other 1000s chips we have, we will delay this indefinitely".
Ridiculous.
They should be covered as an aggregation, provided the LGPL was intact.
Not sure what you're trying to say here. DMCA takedown enforcement is 100% the responsibility of the Online Service Providers per statute. It's the mechanism by which they receive safe harbor from liability for hosting infringing content.
Once a valid (from a process perspective) claim is submitted, the provider is required to take the claimed content down for 10 days. From there the counter claim and court processes can go back and forth.
You can post your thoughts, feelings, and opinions on google blog, and I can submit a DMCA and google is required to take down your thoughts feelings and opinions immediately without verification.
The problem here isn't a technical violation of the LGPL, it's that Rockchip doesn't own the copyright to FFMPEG and simply doesn't have the legal authority to release it under any license other than the LGPL. What they should have done is put their modified FFMPEG code into a forked project, clearly label it with an LGPL LICENSE file, and link against that.