Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disney Open Source

disney.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 126 posts

Re: Disney Open Source

#41

Post by dr_zoidberg »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #35
ncannon wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All those you mention do have licenses. OpenEXR - https://github.com/openexr/openexr/blob/develop/OpenEXR/LICE... Ptex - http://ptex.us/documentation.html Partio - https://github.com/wdas/partio/blob/master/src/doc/license.t...

Cool, I'm glad, but still always be careful. Meanwhile, I don't really have access to a lawyer and I'm curious: 1. Should I trust a license which is not distributed with the source code (i.e. on the hopefully official website)? 2. Should I trust a license which is in a sub-directory? My initial assumption is that, only that sub-directory is licensed.

IANAL (but I work often with them) and, about (2)... It'd depend mostly on how it's presented. You could either argue along your reasoning (only sub-directories are licensed) or say "it's right there in the 'documents' subdirectory that comes with the project, it's in another directory only to have things better organized, so all the project is licensed".

Probably you'd be able to find legal precedents for both arguments. Still, I agree with you that it's good to pay attention and understand the licenses (or get legal councel if you don't) if you're planning on doing anythnig with these projects (and others too).

Re: Disney Open Source

#42

Post by themihai »

gkoberger wrote: post #22
alexkavon wrote: post #5

Can't wait for the Mickey Mouse repo in 2024.

Why? Disney has invested countless dollars into Mickey Mouse over the past 89 years. It's not like the Happy Birthday song, being hoarded without innovation purely for profit; they're actively expanding/investing/improving and making billions of people happy. Why should random companies get to legally print knockoff Mickey t-shirts just because enough time has passed?

>> Why should random companies get to legally print knockoff Mickey t-shirts just because enough time has passed?

Because after a while is supposed that the investment paid off. Why should a single company keep Mickey or any other IP right hostage forever?

Re: Disney Open Source

#43

Post by ncannon »

viraptor wrote: post #38
ncannon wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All those you mention do have licenses. OpenEXR - https://github.com/openexr/openexr/blob/develop/OpenEXR/LICE... Ptex - http://ptex.us/documentation.html Partio - https://github.com/wdas/partio/blob/master/src/doc/license.t...

I don't think it changes yazaddaruvala's point. What happens when ptex website goes away and disney lawyers decide there was no proof?

Poor choice of link on my part, the license is there in the Github repo:

https://github.com/wdas/ptex/blob/master/src/doc/License.txt

Re: Disney Open Source

#44

Post by vidarh »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #39
lima wrote: post #8

OpenSubdiv is a game changer in FOSS 3d software. Blender is already using it: https://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Ref/Release_Notes/2.7... Demo: https://youtu.be/dzIl_S-qHIQ?t=115

Like the entire game has changed, rules, board, pieces and everything? Or like the game has been somewhat improved?

Check out the video. In the example, rendering of an animated model goes from 0.25fps without it, to 4fps with it using CPU rendering, or up to 40fps using CUDA for the example model....

I'd say that is large enough to have the potential to fundamentally alter how people work.

Re: Disney Open Source

#45

Post by Narkov »

themihai wrote: post #42
gkoberger wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Disney has invested countless dollars into Mickey Mouse over the past 89 years. It's not like the Happy Birthday song, being hoarded without innovation purely for profit; they're actively expanding/investing/improving and making billions of people happy. Why should random companies get to legally print knockoff Mickey t-shirts just because enough time has passed?

>> Why should random companies get to legally print knockoff Mickey t-shirts just because enough time has passed? Because after a while is supposed that the investment paid off. Why should a single company keep Mickey or any other IP right hostage forever?

Should the same happen to your family home?

Re: Disney Open Source

#46

Post by phkahler »

jedberg wrote: post #34

I as really hoping all the projects would be named after Disney characters, because it would be fun to say, "I think we should run Mickey, but we may need to fork Donald to make it work in our environment".

I can think of many from Disney that I'd rather fork than Donald. ;-)

Re: Disney Open Source

#47

Post by lelandbatey »

Narkov wrote: post #45
themihai wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Why should random companies get to legally print knockoff Mickey t-shirts just because enough time has passed? Because after a while is supposed that the investment paid off. Why should a single company keep Mickey or any other IP right hostage forever?

Should the same happen to your family home?

If someone could take an exact copy of my family home and live in it somewhere else, leaving me happy to live in my own home, then ABSOLUTELY!

I realize that's not what you meant, but acting as though Mickey Mouse becoming public domain will "take away" from us, in the same way giving away the house you live in will "take away" your home is at best a total fallacy.

Re: Disney Open Source

#48

Post by bluejekyll »

Narkov wrote: post #45
themihai wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Why should random companies get to legally print knockoff Mickey t-shirts just because enough time has passed? Because after a while is supposed that the investment paid off. Why should a single company keep Mickey or any other IP right hostage forever?

Should the same happen to your family home?

No, the better question is; Should someone else be able to build a knock-off of your home?

IP is not the same as physical property. Disney isn't forced to give away they artwork they've made internally. Mickey Mouse as IP, i.e. as a concept, is currently not allowed to be reproduced.

If we're going to debate property rights, it's important to have the context and the property properly defined. Many people can rightfully ask if land should be allowed to be held by any single entity for infinite time, but again, that's not the question here.

Re: Disney Open Source

#49

Post by jedberg »

phkahler wrote: post #46
jedberg wrote: post #34

I as really hoping all the projects would be named after Disney characters, because it would be fun to say, "I think we should run Mickey, but we may need to fork Donald to make it work in our environment".

I can think of many from Disney that I'd rather fork than Donald. ;-)

I dunno, I prefer to eat duck over dog or mouse. ;)
Post reply on HN