91–100 of 543 posts
China stealing intellectual property? If only we could have seen this coming!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It won’t change if it’s not prosecuted.
In what court that protects IP and has jurisdiction in China would one file that lawsuit?
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.
Or maybe you do not: examples given are not similar to what GP refers to.
So if they find it too expensively they can simply turn away and build their own, which is good for whoever get the chance to do some lower level programming, and if they find it OK the open source authors/maintainers can get some good money. It's a win-win. Of course this might request open source authors/maintainers to form a more rigid organization (how to share the profit).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a way to buy oneself out of GPL license? I beleive there's not.
The authors can re-license right, even for one (paying) customer? They could also pay for the promise not to sue? IANAL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The authors can re-license right, even for one (paying) customer? They could also pay for the promise not to sue? IANAL.
I remember reading that it should be able for users to sue instead of the author, if they cannot ccess the source of GPL'ed software.
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.
Sure but then couldn't whoever receives the USB or DVD post the source code someplace more convenient? I'm not sure what that "workaround" would accomplish.
It's concerning how many self-labelled software engineers on Twitter are chipping in with comments like "it's open source so it's fair game" or "they just need to add attribution".
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.
Why would a newspaper article that regurgitates the Twitter thread be any better? If the source is Twitter then I much prefer a link to Twitter.
Twitter is popular for people obsessed with hearing the latest rumor, but if TikTok is an illegal fork of OBS, I’d rather hear a few days later the well researched details - or if its a nothingburger overreaction, then I’d rather not hear about it at all.
The original Tweet (embedded one from HunterAP) says TikTok installs OBS and uses it in the background with a TikTok front-end. It doesn’t say that they’ve illegally forked it. EDIT: See comments from OBS developer below for a more clear explanation of the issues than the linked Tweet
OBS developer here. It doesn't "install OBS in the background". They ship several executables as part of their software that contain code derived from OBS and there is no offer of source code. They're currently in violation of the GPL, but per our GPL Cooperation Commitment we are trying to work this out with them privately.
Is there anywhere where this is written up more clearly? Even on Twitter? Would be good to circulate a more clear explanation of what's going on.