411–420 of 543 posts
How can you be so inept that you're literally stealing software, but are too incompetent to properly obfuscate it?
Could someone please help explain to me and (others who might not know) what is the concrete problem caused by this forking that doesn't comply with the license?
The GPL requires that any derivative work of GPL licensed code must also be licensed under the same (or compatible) license as the original GPL'd code. This is the "viral" aspect of the license. It applies even if the only interface between your code and the GPL code is dynamic linking, and not a single line of the GPL'd code is in your application. There are acceptable ways to bundle GPL code with closed source soft…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> mostly because it could be really bad if a judge gets it wrong and sets something stupid as precedent. At this point, isn't precedent already set? There have been more than a few GPL lawsuits where the courts ruled in favor of the GPL. This wiki has a list ( https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases ) of them. Some of those are in the US, others in the EU. Not sure if US judges have to consider prece…
I'd say there's not "enough," and in a sense, precedent is never binary, like "yes or no?" The law having distinctions and extensions and so on. US will probably find EU law persuasive but not binding. So broadly, I think at least part of the strategy is "don't wake the beast." You really don't want e.g. "Microsoft v. Tiny GPL guy" as a big case because the law is far from perfect and there would be a lot of potentia…
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/enforcement-st...
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.
Nobody says they want money. They likely just want the GPL violation to stop, one way or another.
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
You can of course create such a license, but it would not be an open source license, more like a shared source license or ethical license or something else.
I've always wondered if these license are legally enforceable. What if TikTok ignores the criticism and does nothing. Do the developers sue the company and will they get any money?
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/enforcement-st... https://gpl-violations.org/ https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>illegal copying amd stealing ideas I find the notion that ideas can be owned to be anti-humanist. We finally invent something that costs nothing to share or copy, and we immediately invent reasons why we can't. Imaginary property was invented by and for lawyers.
If IP wasn't a thing then what would be the incentive to find new IP? Why would anyone make movies, do drug research, etc
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That would either mean open-sourcing the software or paying for a license no, in general it means TikTok rewriting those portions of the software themselves
So they can just steal until they get caught, make a bazillion bucks, and get off scot-free if they write their own code after getting caught?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
My comment doesn't meet any of this criteria. The original article was about a Chinese company's unauthorized fork of OBS. It's semantics whether or not you consider an "unauthorized fork" as stealing, but I certainly do. So it's neither unrelated or a generic tangent, as it relates to intellectual property theft. It's beyond question both that China as a country is known for stealing intellectual property, and that…
Yikes. All I see is a comment that teeters on the brink of racism and now you're trying to backtrack.
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.