81–90 of 543 posts
I'd like to see HN shy away from posting twitter threads as news. There's almost always a hard link to the source material, and twitter threads are filled with emotional, truncated, nuance-lacking, trite clips that more often than not do little to promote healthy discussion of a topic. The goal of quality here really is noble.
sometimes thats where the news is
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OBS is willing to work with TikTok to get them into compliance. That would either mean open-sourcing the software or paying for a license.
Is there a way to buy oneself out of GPL license? I beleive there's not.
Basically, it's practically (not ethically) fair game to use GPL in commercial software, until someone catches you. The only repercussion that the license provides is that your license is revoked until you resolve the violation (for the first violation).
Meanwhile, you got to release your product, and by the time you got caught you've had enough time to implement it yourself.
Are they technically obligated to provide the source code online, or could they just say: "Well it's available on request, and no one has done so"? The just mail out a USB stick or DVD to anyone who asks? I believe that's with in the limits of the GPLv2.
Are they technically obligated to provide the source code online, or could they just say: "Well it's available on request, and no one has done so"? The just mail out a USB stick or DVD to anyone who asks? I believe that's with in the limits of the GPLv2.
TikTok have not provided a link to its source code, not are there instructions on their site or within the download package indicating where users can obtain the source code. Therefore, it's a violation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The OBS project has accused StreamLabs of copying their name and stealing their trademark (By naming their software StreamLabs OBS). I'm not sure about any source code thievery.
Streamlabs violated OBS' trademarks, their fork has always complied with the GPL.
Are they technically obligated to provide the source code online, or could they just say: "Well it's available on request, and no one has done so"? The just mail out a USB stick or DVD to anyone who asks? I believe that's with in the limits of the GPLv2.
Yep. "available on request" is perfectly allowed, there's no requirement that it be on a publicly available webpage.
People expecting OBS to get millions from this are naïve. Almost certainly TikTok will change the software to just use OBS independently to avoid the issue. If OBS wants money they should use a dual license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a fan of the GPLv3 limiting the available response to copyright violations. Time limits in particular. It's one of the less clear parts of the license IMHO, and it affects the primary means of enforcement. Fortunately a lot of GPLv3 code is actually 3+ so maybe if a version 4 ever comes along this nonsensical restriction on enforcement will be more limited. I do understand the reasons around accidental misuse…
I'm not personally a fan of protecting against accidental misuse. No other law offers significant leniency for ignorance that I am aware of.
I'd like to see HN shy away from posting twitter threads as news. There's almost always a hard link to the source material, and twitter threads are filled with emotional, truncated, nuance-lacking, trite clips that more often than not do little to promote healthy discussion of a topic. The goal of quality here really is noble.
From the HN guidelines: > Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—things like article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.