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

Show HN: Lightspeed – subsecond, open source, self hosted stream from OBS

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 141 posts

Re: Show HN: Lightspeed – subsecond, open source, self hosted stream from OBS

#101

Post by busterarm »

falcolas wrote: post #98
busterarm wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because essentially these licenses say "your contribution is OSS today, but it might end up resulting as unintended free labor that helps build a commercial product of which you won't be part of". Contributions to non-copyleft OSS licenses _are_ actual contributions to the open source community as a whole. There's nothing preventing your GPL'd project from being used to make a commercial product that you are not a…

> There's nothing preventing your GPL'd project from being used to make a commercial product that you are not a part of either. Copyright law does exactly this. The role of the GPL is to carve out explicit exceptions to the "you can't copy this" rights granted by copyright law.

A lot of people seem to confuse Commercial with Proprietary...

They are not the same.

Re: Show HN: Lightspeed – subsecond, open source, self hosted stream from OBS

#102

Post by j1elo »

busterarm wrote: post #94
j1elo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realize how I oriented my question around how it might affect building an OSS community. A MIT or Apache license might detract contributors, because essentially these licenses say "your contribution is OSS today, but it might end up resulting as unintended free labor that helps build a commercial product of which you won't be part of". However some see GPL licenses as a guarantee that external contributions are actua…

> because essentially these licenses say "your contribution is OSS today, but it might end up resulting as unintended free labor that helps build a commercial product of which you won't be part of". Contributions to non-copyleft OSS licenses _are_ actual contributions to the open source community as a whole. There's nothing preventing your GPL'd project from being used to make a commercial product that you are not a…

> Even if through some process the license changes in the future, your contributions were still to an open source license and that version of the code will remain open forever.

Well, that's a good take. You're right of course: the exact version of the codebase you contributed to, was licensed as OSS and it will always stay like that.

So yes, copyleft is more about providing guarantees about the future, while non-copyleft can only provide guarantees about the present.

I think this way of putting it is clearer than my previous way of saying it. Thanks for bringing up this point of view.

> This is the reason why projects like MAME have contributor agreements now.

Hence articles such as [1] and [2], which have been posted in HN before, albeit with pretty much zero conversation.

Still, just like I'm interested in the topic of OSS licenses and the thought process of people who choose them for their projects, I find also interesting the matter about CLAs and whether to go on with one or instead opting to use a DCO [3], which some well known OSS projects have preferred in the past: [4], [5].

[1]: Why CLAs aren't good for open source -- https://opensource.com/article/19/2/cla-problems

[2]: Why you probably shouldn’t add a CLA to your open source project -- https://ben.balter.com/2018/01/02/why-you-probably-shouldnt-...

[3]: CLA vs. DCO: What's the difference? -- https://opensource.com/article/18/3/cla-vs-dco-whats-differe...

[4]: (GitLab) We're switching to a DCO for source code contributions -- https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2017/11/01/gitlab-switches-to-...

[5]: Helm Moves To DCO -- https://helm.sh/blog/helm-dco/

Re: Show HN: Lightspeed – subsecond, open source, self hosted stream from OBS

#103

Post by j1elo »

CarVac wrote: post #82
naikrovek wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am also pro-MIT. For me, "freedom" doesn't mean "restricting what users can do." GPL restricts what users can do, and thus restricts freedom in my eyes. Not sure why anyone would care but it seemed like a good time to explain my thoughts on that while agreeing with you. This kind of thing has been needed for some time, so thank you for creating it.

Depends on how you define "user". A developer is the "user"? MIT is freer for the dev, but the dev is free to restrict the end-user. End-users are the users? GPL restricts developers from closing the source, empowering end users to become developers too.

At least in the case of GPL, "user" refers to the end user, and yes, the license is all about some freedoms that are guaranteed to percolate towards the end users, indeed empowering them to become developers themselves, if they wanted:

> It is absolutely essential to permit users who wish to help each other to share their bug fixes and improvements with other users.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhyDoesTheGPLPe...

Re: Show HN: Lightspeed – subsecond, open source, self hosted stream from OBS

#104

Post by falcolas »

busterarm wrote: post #101
falcolas wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's nothing preventing your GPL'd project from being used to make a commercial product that you are not a part of either. Copyright law does exactly this. The role of the GPL is to carve out explicit exceptions to the "you can't copy this" rights granted by copyright law.

A lot of people seem to confuse Commercial with Proprietary... They are not the same.

Doesn't matter. Copyright, without the licensing exceptions, won't allow EvilCorp Inc. use your code even if you publish it in the clear on the internet.

Also, more relevant to the discussion I was responding to, the GPL license doesn't allow re-licensing without consent (or a pre-arranged copyright assignment - a contributor's agreement). And it's copyright law which enforces this.

Re: Show HN: Lightspeed – subsecond, open source, self hosted stream from OBS

#105

Post by j1elo »

busterarm wrote: post #101
falcolas wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's nothing preventing your GPL'd project from being used to make a commercial product that you are not a part of either. Copyright law does exactly this. The role of the GPL is to carve out explicit exceptions to the "you can't copy this" rights granted by copyright law.

A lot of people seem to confuse Commercial with Proprietary... They are not the same.

True. Although in practice, the end-user freedoms that are guaranteed by copyleft practically destroy all, if not for a couple exceptions, of viable business plans.

So even if theoretically the most aggressive licenses still allow for commercialization, the practical effect is that commercializing a copyleft codebase won't travel too far on its own as a business plan.

This has been discussed a lot of times in HN, and the conclusion always is something on the lines of "don't do copyleft if you want to have any aspirations of commercialization on the software itself as opposed to peripheral elements such as support services or similar".

Re: Show HN: Lightspeed – subsecond, open source, self hosted stream from OBS

#106

Post by busterarm »

falcolas wrote: post #104
busterarm wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people seem to confuse Commercial with Proprietary... They are not the same.

Doesn't matter. Copyright, without the licensing exceptions , won't allow EvilCorp Inc. use your code even if you publish it in the clear on the internet. Also, more relevant to the discussion I was responding to, the GPL license doesn't allow re-licensing without consent (or a pre-arranged copyright assignment - a contributor's agreement). And it's copyright law which enforces this.

Given past experiences, I see large group projects trending towards having CLAs/DCOs where you give up ownership of your code anyway.

Most people don't want to work with random contributors who wish to hold a gun to their heads in perpetuity.

Re: Show HN: Lightspeed – subsecond, open source, self hosted stream from OBS

#107

Post by falcolas »

busterarm wrote: post #106
falcolas wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't matter. Copyright, without the licensing exceptions , won't allow EvilCorp Inc. use your code even if you publish it in the clear on the internet. Also, more relevant to the discussion I was responding to, the GPL license doesn't allow re-licensing without consent (or a pre-arranged copyright assignment - a contributor's agreement). And it's copyright law which enforces this.

Given past experiences, I see large group projects trending towards having CLAs/DCOs where you give up ownership of your code anyway. Most people don't want to work with random contributors who wish to hold a gun to their heads in perpetuity.

> who wish to hold a gun to their heads

An aside, that's an awfully violent visual for discussing ownership of code.

Re: Show HN: Lightspeed – subsecond, open source, self hosted stream from OBS

#108

Post by busterarm »

j1elo wrote: post #105
busterarm wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people seem to confuse Commercial with Proprietary... They are not the same.

True. Although in practice, the end-user freedoms that are guaranteed by copyleft practically destroy all, if not for a couple exceptions, of viable business plans. So even if theoretically the most aggressive licenses still allow for commercialization, the practical effect is that commercializing a copyleft codebase won't travel too far on its own as a business plan. This has been discussed a lot of times in HN, and…

> So even if theoretically the most aggressive licenses still allow for commercialization, the practical effect is that commercializing a copyleft codebase won't travel too far on its own as a business plan.

Red Hat was acquired for $34 Billion.

It really depends on what you're selling and how good your product is.

> "don't do copyleft if you want to have any aspirations of commercialization on the software itself as opposed to peripheral elements such as support services or similar"

Cop out argument. This comes from the same people who do split licenses that spit in the face of the spirit of OSS. It's people who want all of the benefits of writing OSS (outside contribution, growth in use of your product, less investment in sales) but none of the risks (someone else using what you offer for free and having a better product than you). It's purely anti-competitive.

Re: Show HN: Lightspeed – subsecond, open source, self hosted stream from OBS

#109

Post by falcolas »

busterarm wrote: post #108
j1elo wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. Although in practice, the end-user freedoms that are guaranteed by copyleft practically destroy all, if not for a couple exceptions, of viable business plans. So even if theoretically the most aggressive licenses still allow for commercialization, the practical effect is that commercializing a copyleft codebase won't travel too far on its own as a business plan. This has been discussed a lot of times in HN, and…

> So even if theoretically the most aggressive licenses still allow for commercialization, the practical effect is that commercializing a copyleft codebase won't travel too far on its own as a business plan. Red Hat was acquired for $34 Billion. It really depends on what you're selling and how good your product is. > "don't do copyleft if you want to have any aspirations of commercialization on the software itself as…

Redhat is the exception that proves the rule. How many more companies which relied upon selling services around GPL'ed code have died? Lots.

Re: Show HN: Lightspeed – subsecond, open source, self hosted stream from OBS

#110

Post by laumars »

morsch wrote: post #67
hnlmorg wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for Jackbox Party games it's by far the best fit. It's even the recommended way to play online by Jackbox themselves and I've hosted Jackbox via both Zoom and MS Teams and it worked perfectly fine that way. Other online games wouldn't fair so well but the dropped frame rate in Jackbox Party games does not hamper the playability of their games at all.

They recommend doing it that way, because what else are they going to do, post a tutorial on how to do it via OBS? I don't think so. Maybe Zoom and MS Teams offer(ed) a better fidelity. For one thing, Zoom lets you share desktop audio along with the screen. In fact, apparently these days, Jitsi can do that too, that definitely wasn't possible when I tried it early last year. At that time, at least, the experience OBS…

You scoff but they did link to a tutorial on how to do it via OBS in their guide[1]. They just made video conferencing the first suggestion.

Also in that guide was Discord and Steam Remote Play. It's a surprisingly technical guide (but in a good way) considering the average audience that might read it. It feels to me that some genuine thought did go into that document.

> Maybe Zoom and MS Teams offer(ed) a better fidelity.

Maybe. Anecdotally I've not had any issues with Zoom whereas Google Meets often feels like it's both heavier on the CPU and feeds seem worse. However that's running Meets on Firefox (Linux), it might perform better in Chrome.

[1] https://www.jackboxgames.com/how-to-play-jackbox-games-with-...

Post reply on HN