They were given 1.5 YEARS of lead time. And FLOSS should treat commercial entities the same way they treat us.
Seriously, if we copied in violation their code, how many hours would pass before a DMCA violation?
FLOSS should be dictatorial in application of the license. After all, its basically free to use and remix as long as you follow the easy rules. I'm also on the same boat that Android phone creators should also be providing source fully, and should be confiscated on import for failure of copyright violations.
But ive seen FLOSS devs be like "let's be nice". Tit for tat is the best game theory so far. Time to use it.
That's not it. The LGPL doesn't require dynamic linking, just that any distributed artifacts be able to be used with derived versions of the LGPL code. Distributing buildable source under Apache 2.0 would surely qualify too.
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.
Not the global best move, or even positive, now the OSS community we lose the OSS code of IloveRockchip, and FFmpeg wins absolutely nothing, except ego recognition but loses in reputation and loses a commercial fork (and potential partner).
There were opportunities to take advantage of this.
The FFmpeg devs saw the violation, even laughed about how funny it was, then they tweeted.
Immediately the developers from Rockship answered:
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 you need something from someone, and they have not done it, you don't send a bomb after 1.5 years of silence. You can send a reminder.
If after these reminders, they don't know how to do, and you want them to do something, then you can educate them:
- A) Click fork on 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 with to your project
Takes 10 minutes.
If they do not want, this is a different case, justifying DMCA, but nothing indicates that here 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."
Now, still:
- Rockchip's code is gone
- FFmpeg gets nothing back
- Community loses whatever improvements existed
- Rockchip becomes an adversary, not a partner
Is working around accessing an embargoed site really any better than just accessing it directly? Morally, what's the difference?
If everyone just actively boycotted that site, it would become irrelevant overnight. Anything else is simply condoning it continued existence. Don't kid yourself.
The repo in question incorporated FFmpeg code while claiming their code is Apache 2.0-licensed over 1.5 years ago[1]
This is not allowed under the LGPL, which mandates dynamic linking against the library. They copy-pasted FFmpeg code into their repo instead.
[1] https://x.com/HermanChen1982/status/1761230920563233137
they waited for more than 1.5 years and they did not forgot
They were given 1.5 YEARS of lead time. And FLOSS should treat commercial entities the same way they treat us.
Seriously, if we copied in violation their code, how many hours would pass before a DMCA violation?
FLOSS should be dictatorial in application of the license. After all, its basically free to use and remix as long as you follow the easy rules. I'm also on the same boat that Android phone creators should also be providing source fully, and should be confiscated on import for failure of copyright violations.
But ive seen FLOSS devs be like "let's be nice". Tit for tat is the best game theory so far. Time to use it.
That's not it. The LGPL doesn't require dynamic linking, just that any distributed artifacts be able to be used with derived versions of the LGPL code. Distributing buildable source under Apache 2.0 would surely qualify too.
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.
How does
"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"
You can distribute your own code under Apache along with FFMpeg under LGPL in one download
if they licenced their own code under apache 2.0 as buildable with the lgpl ffmeg code, without relicensing ffmeg as apache itself
Not the global best move, or even positive, now the OSS community we lose the OSS code of IloveRockchip, and FFmpeg wins absolutely nothing, except ego recognition but loses in reputation and loses a commercial fork (and potential partner).
There were opportunities to take advantage of this.
How do you partner with someone who has so much contempt for you they ignore the license you've given them and, when called on it, simply ignore you?
We are not going to loose anything. If it’s got a strong enough community then someone will publish a fork with the problem fixed
They had ample warning and ignored the license. what you're even on about?
https://libera.catirclogs.org/ffmpeg-devel/2024-02-23
The FFmpeg devs saw the violation, even laughed about how funny it was, then they tweeted.
Immediately the developers from Rockship answered: 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 you need something from someone, and they have not done it, you don't send a bomb after 1.5 years of silence. You can send a reminder.
If after these reminders, they don't know how to do, and you want them to do something, then you can educate them:
- A) Click fork on 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 with to your project
Takes 10 minutes.
If they do not want, this is a different case, justifying DMCA, but nothing indicates that here 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."
Now, still:
- Rockchip's code is gone - FFmpeg gets nothing back - Community loses whatever improvements existed - Rockchip becomes an adversary, not a partner
someone post an archive link, I can't read that
Does this work for you? https://xcancel.com/FFmpeg/status/2004599109559496984
Is working around accessing an embargoed site really any better than just accessing it directly? Morally, what's the difference?
If everyone just actively boycotted that site, it would become irrelevant overnight. Anything else is simply condoning it continued existence. Don't kid yourself.
The issue is that you need an account to view the replies, not that there's a moral opposition to visiting the website (though it could be that too).
What's stopping you from making the archive link yourself?
Clash of cultures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanzhai#Regulation vs. the 鬼子 鬼佬 老外