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

391–400 of 543 posts

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#391

Post by 908B64B197 »

paxys wrote: post #353
908B64B197 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish "software engineer" meant something. There are CMU/MIT grads using the tittle alongside 3 month bootcamp grads. I also have to wonder, with the owners of Tik Tok really being ByteDance (字节跳动) if the dissrespect for IP really isn't cultural.

The title isn't what's important, it's your skills and what you can do with them. The MIT grad and 3 month bootcamp grad both have the same opportunity to complete and prove themselves, which is unique to the software field. Lack of artificial barriers and gatekeeping is the very reason why the industry is able to thrive.

But you get these twitter threads that are highly missleading. Would be great to have some quality control at some point.

This doesn't make real engineers look good in the eyes of the public. Same thing with medical profesionnals spreading anti-vaxx news around.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#392

Post by lmm »

nsv wrote: post #345
wongarsu wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless a major contributor of OBS sues, nothing will come of it. That's unfortunately very rare, the only one doing that with any frequency seems to be Harald Welte (one of the iptables developers) [1] 1: https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases#Wel...

Couldn't the FSF sue on their behalf?

No, only the copyright holder. If it were an FSF program where they owned the copyright then they would (this is one of the reasons the FSF requires copyright assignment).

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#393

Post by samtheprogram »

pphysch wrote: post #363
samtheprogram wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the original comment you responded to, the CCP put a party member in the ByteDance board of directors. The CCP is also known to enforce censoring government critical speech on their platforms including TikTok. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-... National Intelligence Law also allows the CCP to request from businesses any data unlimited in scope without a warrant or possible recourse. ht…

> The CCP is also known to enforce censoring government critical speech on their platforms including TikTok. Donald Trump? Jan 6? Julian Assange? Chelsea Manning? There are countless examples of USG censorship. Just because you don't ideologically agree with the victims does not absolve the act of censorship. > National Intelligence Law also allows the CCP to request from businesses any data unlimited in scope withou…

> Donald Trump? Jan 6? Julian Assange? Chelsea Manning?

While I don’t agree with the prosecution of Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning was pardoned and censorship of Donald Trump was done by the businesses themselves due to cultural reasons. That had nothing to do with the US Government (of which Donald Trump was running the executive branch at the time). It’s also far different than having all dissent being censored, and as a business being liable for any and all dissent that is not censored on your platform.

> Do you really believe that Washington doesn't have this same power? That they will just go "oh well, guess we can't investigate this national security crisis because Google said so". That's clearly ridiculous. Washington has the power and resources to break into datacenters if compelled.

That’s pure conjecture. In your words, provide some evidence to dig deeper. Either way, Washington having to break into a domestic data center to get their information is different than the law explicitly stating that all domestic business are a part of the national security apparatus and requiring businesses hand anything over no questions asked — the latter of which is “vastly more controlling than the other”.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#394

Post by munk-a »

borodi wrote: post #342
ignoramous wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if the GPLv3 violation pulls in TikTok's other software and infrastructure under it. That'd be one for the ages (like OpenWrt was [0]) if FSF manages to reign it in! [0] https://thenewstack.io/the-open-source-lesson-of-the-linksys...

OBS is GPLv2 so I don't think it would get to that level. Tho if the other GPL code is v3 then who knows.

It really depends on the usage - if serverside components are also using OBS libraries for something then they'd be violating a contract in their server code regardless of the license version.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#395

Post by munk-a »

ksm1717 wrote: post #281
humanistbot wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What if it’s one character?

The realm of what does and doesn't constitute a license violation is complex and, in the end, up to the whims of the legal system. For this particular issue it appears that an actionable amount of the project is in use.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#396

Post by rhizome »

jacobr1 wrote: post #371
overeater wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In option 1, when does the license get invalidated? Is it invalidated in the first place because the offending software broke the license? Or is it invalidated after notification from OBS? Or even later, after some amount of time after notification and non-correction? If it's violated before notification, then option 1 is not possible, and option 2 is at the discretion of OBS, so option 3 is the only real legal outco…

https://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ provides a great explanation > There is no provision in the Copyright Act to require distribution of infringing work on altered terms. What copyright plaintiffs are entitled to, under the Act, are damages, injunctions to prevent infringing distribution, and--where appropriate--attorneys' fees. A defendant found to have wrongfully included GPL'd code in its own proprietary work can be m…

New word to me day!

Mulct: extract money via tax or fine.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#397

Post by dspillett »

teddyh wrote: post #86
Karunamon wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. "available on request" is perfectly allowed, there's no requirement that it be on a publicly available webpage.

No, the offer of source code must be explicit , not just available if anyone happens to ask.

The offer yes, but the code does not need to be that easy to publicly access. Of course once the first person to request the source via that offer gets it (assuming they come good in that respect) it might be made more easily available.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#398

Post by LordDragonfang »

remram wrote: post #360
oalessandr wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EFF lost all credibility by jumping into the crypto bandwagon

What did they do?

If the above poster never replies, I would assume that they're referring to (from a quick google) the fact that the EFF opposes laws that would put liabilities for blockchain software on the software author[1], and provides other similar defenses, similar to how the ACLU occasionally defends the free speech of white supremacists[2], to ensure equal protection under the law and avoid setting a bad legal precedent.

[1] https://www.eff.org/issues/blockchain

[2] https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-w...

edit: Specifically, they probably mean the EFF's opposition to the crypto surveillance provision in the Biden infra bill:

(Summary) https://twitter.com/eff/status/1422337127556157444

(Article) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/cryptocurrency-surveil...

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#399

Post by teddyh »

dspillett wrote: post #397
teddyh wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the offer of source code must be explicit , not just available if anyone happens to ask.

The offer yes, but the code does not need to be that easy to publicly access. Of course once the first person to request the source via that offer gets it (assuming they come good in that respect) it might be made more easily available.

Sure, but did anyone installing the TikTok streaming software get such an explicit offer? If not, then, hey, GPL violation.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#400

Post by lmm »

Buttons840 wrote: post #311

Could GPL include a clause such that, when abused like this, the code of the offending app would become GPL code as well? Imagine people start "stealing" TikTok code, TikToc sues, and now the defendant has their day in court to defend the GPL, at TikToks expense.

Remember that what you're legally entitled to is statutory damages ($50k per act of infringement or $150k for wilful infringement) plus whatever actual damages you can prove (probably 0 for a hobbyist).

You can negotiate whatever alternative settlement you like, which might mean e.g. regular audits of their code at their expense (the BSA does this kind of thing for a lot of commercial software). But they always have the option of just ponying up that $50k/copy, so you can't be too onerous.

Post reply on HN