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

TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 543 posts

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#381

Post by cma »

rrix2 wrote: post #361
nsv wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't the FSF sue on their behalf?

On what grounds? The FSF has no standing to sue like that. The software freedom conservancy has lawyers who will work on copyleft infringement cases like this but a copyright holder still has to step forward as a plaintiff.

They could just provide legal support without being the plaintiff. They have done so before (or rather the Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy)):

>That is how the FSF and Conservancy have always handled compliance. The FSF has done compliance work for the GNU Project for decades, and in all that time, we have only been forced to file a lawsuit once. The suit came about after years of working with the violator trying to correct their compliance. Even in that instance, where the FSF eventually did have to sue, the violator later went on to become a contributor to the GNU Project, and continued other free software activities as well. Conservancy has a similar track record of avoiding lawsuits; they are currently funding Christoph Hellwig's lawsuit against VMware in Germany, which marks the first time Conservancy has ever been involved with a lawsuit regarding Linux, and their FAQ explains the lawsuit came after four years of friendly efforts by many parties asking VMware to follow the GPL's requirements.

https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2016/fall/the-role-of-lawsuits-...

>Conservancy maintains this FAQ list regarding Christoph Hellwig's lawsuit against VMware in Germany over alleged GPL violations on Linux as a service to the Free Software community, and in particular, the copyleft community. Conservancy realizes this lawsuit generates many questions and interest from the community. Legal counsel (both Conservancy's own, and Christoph's lawyer, Till Jaeger) correctly advise us to limit our public comments regarding specific details of the case while litigation remains pending in court.

https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vmware-lawsuit...

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#383

Post by joebob42 »

jmull wrote: post #297
JoeCee wrote: post #290

Sorta side question: is it legal/ethical to say, “open source unless you’re a company of more than X people then it’s X * $Y to license”

That's fine, except don't call it an "open source" license. That's a commercial license.

I think it's still open source, it's just not free right?

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#384

Post by wott »

anthk wrote: post #125
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common misconception, but Software Engineer is actually a licensed profession in many states (with vague industry exemptions): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_engineering_professio... But virtually nobody does it. The NCEES even abandoned their Software Engineer licensing exam a few years ago because nobody was taking it.

In Europe being an engineer has civil accountability on issues. You can be fined really high if you hire a self-called engineer without a proper degree. Or at least decades of alleged experience in the field.

> In Europe being an engineer has civil accountability on issues. You can be fined really high if you hire a self-called engineer without a proper degree.

One more case of mistakenly presenting 'Europe' as an homogenous entity, whereas it depends on countries like anywhere else.

In France anyone can claim an engineer position, it is not licensed. You just cannot tell you hold an engineer degree if you haven't one; and that's pretty theoretical, because basically nobody uses the proper formal title (unlike for example in Germany where they always use the words Dipl. Ing.), so you can always fall back on claiming you are talking about the position and not the degree title.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#385

Post by DannyBee »

dathinab wrote: post #351
lucasyvas wrote: post #34

In almost all cases, TikTok's offering would be considered a derived work because you cannot swap out the OBS part for another and still have it work. So they are likely in full violation unless they agree to open source all their code. Seems like a pretty open and shut case to be honest - that is, if they intend to pursue legal action and the powers that be rule appropriately.

Given that it only affects a beta client they could: - pay damage for the violation the the client, given that's only beta that would likely not amount to much - and stop the beta program, while replacing their OBS dependency with something completely different.

This is not how it works. Courts do not care that it's a beta.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#386

Post by DannyBee »

mrweasel wrote: post #58

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.

It is not within the limits of GPLv2. If you go the "written offer" route, you have to actually make the offer, and it must be valid to anyone for 3 years.

Tiktok has not done that.

You also can't do it post-facto :)

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#387

Post by DannyBee »

Karunamon wrote: post #67
mrweasel wrote: post #58

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.

This is totally wrong. It must be an explicit offer for source.

" 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: ...

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, "

Note accompany it.

The only exception is this: "If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code. "

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#388

Post by randombits0 »

ghusbands wrote: post #9

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.

I don’t mean any disrespect to anyone but can we go back to basics?

Copyright applies to creative expressions. Purely functional expressions are not copyrightable.

Regardless of license, only creative expressions within the work are protected. That said, what portions of the work are creative?

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#390

Post by phkahler »

endisneigh wrote: post #55

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.

>> People expecting OBS to get millions from this are naïve.

IANAL but copyright violation has already happened. Due to our insane lobbyists the penalties for that are something like $150K per copy. If/when some copyright holder wants to make an example and get rich instead of settling for compliance, they should be quite able to do so. I would love to see a big evil company smacked down like that.

>> If OBS wants money they should use a dual license.

That's just an opinion.

Post reply on HN