211–220 of 543 posts
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".
are you implying there should be requirements to label yourself as an engineer? like a degree in engineering ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not like US companies would be any better. They usually just take more care of hiding it, cause you know, cause you know lawsuits.
US (and European) companies are typically a lot better about it, precisely because they fear lawsuits, they fear the consequences. China and its large companies don't fear lawsuits the way US corporations do. That's how Jack Ma was able to steal Alipay from Yahoo shareholders and laugh all the way to the bank, there were no consequences to worry about. It's why Yahoo capitulated in dealing with Alibaba as a major sha…
They even refused to get in touch. Why would they when they have most Swedish political parties in their pocket? And that's in one of the world's least corrupt countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter is not the original source. The first image in the tweet is of an earlier post.
The image you’re talking about in the tweet is of a Discord message — this tweet is presumably the most original source that’s linkable as a normal page on the web.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Relavant Tweet: https://twitter.com/dodgepong/status/1471522226520346632
See also https://twitter.com/dodgepong/status/1471528656199692292 and https://twitter.com/dodgepong/status/1471524716477300737 too twitter; didn't read: there's apparently OBS code evident in the decompiled app, and other GPL code as well, and OBS found out independently and are working to resolve it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are misunderstanding this and claiming it's not problematic because the tweet in the HN link is idiocy. They show one URL in one installer script with an obsproject.com domain and conclude, from the presence of that URL alone, that the entire project is a whole cloth copy of OBS. That URL is nothing but a 302 redirect to the directx runtime at https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Download/confirmation.aspx?i... The…
> that the entire project is a whole cloth copy of OBS. That is a straw man argument. It doesn't matter what percent of the infringing product uses GPL-licensed code.
People are misunderstanding this and claiming it's not problematic. Ben Torrell (an OBS developer) notes later in the thread that there is indeed GPL code compiled into TikTok's executables; since source is not available and they have not got another license, it is unlicensed and hence illegal.
People are misunderstanding this and claiming it's not problematic because the tweet in the HN link is idiocy. They show one URL in one installer script with an obsproject.com domain and conclude, from the presence of that URL alone, that the entire project is a whole cloth copy of OBS. That URL is nothing but a 302 redirect to the directx runtime at https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Download/confirmation.aspx?i... The…
Truly this is the strongest possible interpretation of this circumstantial evidence and does not make you look like an idiot (re idiocy) at all. You would rather write this comment than simply navigate to the OBS github and find the copy of this installer script in there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are misunderstanding this and claiming it's not problematic because the tweet in the HN link is idiocy. They show one URL in one installer script with an obsproject.com domain and conclude, from the presence of that URL alone, that the entire project is a whole cloth copy of OBS. That URL is nothing but a 302 redirect to the directx runtime at https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Download/confirmation.aspx?i... The…
Why would a company the size of tiktok want to depend on some open source project maintaining a URL? Would they be liable if it instead redirected to malware?
Is made up of smaller teams composed of individuals who may or may not take shortcuts and make good decisions on behalf of their company. If the choice is between "executive said 'hey use this open source in secret'" or "programmer took shortcut," my bet is on the latter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The obvious difference is that it's impossible to explain any complex or in depth information using 280 characters or less. Trying to follow a thread of tweets (without using a 3rd party site) is painful. Heck, this throwaway response barely fits.
Many times there are a series of tweets. It's as easy to view it is as easy as scrolling down no third party tools required
Twitter is actually an incredible feed if you meticulously scope your feed or lists to industry folks, people doing advocacy for various marginalized groups, and individual journalists (not their news outlets, whose editors add the clickbait). If you do this, Twitter becomes a place where people proudly try to summarize their own intensive research and journalism into 280 characters, and thus present varied insights at extremely high density. Every tweet tends to link the long-form work itself, as well as a thread, by them, that is essentially an abstract for their long-form work. And professionals who want to post off-brand content will often times open up a second account for trivialities, which you can choose not to follow.
To put it another way: If you wanted to capture the zeitgeist of, say, a machine learning conference, and made a user interface to let people summarize their work, speak excitedly about it, be able to present multiple levels of depth (single-sentence, abstract, images, full paper), and throw in the occasional meme whose comment section is actually an insightful take on challenges people are facing... odds are your interface would look very similar to Twitter as it currently exists. The difference, as always, is the content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably they are employed at companies who are themselves violating GPL and have seen this being done there.
How do you think companies end up violating GPL. Maybe sometimes it's a heartless executive, but a lot of enterprise software devs are completely unconcerned with licenses. If they can get their hands on it, the license doesn't matter.
He just refused to believe that software licenses were real. That and I dont think he could actually code anything from scratch without stealing large swaths of code from open source repositories.