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]…
Huge props to both groups then. Selectively enforced rights aren't rights at all.
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…
I'm thinking of infringers in China, for example. You wont win any damages from them, but if the GPL says that by using it, you agree to also release you own code under GPL, then at least everyone could start copying China's code. And if they complain, just point to the GPL code they used and say "you agreed to this by using the GPL code in the first place".
That only works if they "agreed" to the license in the first place. Without a license, it's just copyright infringement which is controlled by statute. There is no shrink wrap license on source code.
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…
I'm thinking of infringers in China, for example. You wont win any damages from them, but if the GPL says that by using it, you agree to also release you own code under GPL, then at least everyone could start copying China's code. And if they complain, just point to the GPL code they used and say "you agreed to this by using the GPL code in the first place".
That's not how the law works; you have certain rights, but you don't get to make up your own unilateral contract that says what you can do to someone infringing your rights, just like you can't e.g. steal someone's goat because they stole your cow (or vice versa).
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…
Can each download be considered an act of infringement?
Maybe; that's the argument that the MPAA etc. used to threaten people with, but I'm not aware of any court having ruled definitively one way or another.
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.
The use of GPLv2 code is fine for plain internal use.
Only when you distribute the GPLv2-using binaries to third parties comes the license in play: you must provide also the source code to those third parties.
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.
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.
obs should be able to do a cease and assist, right? hopefully more, that’s illegal to steal someone’s code so they must give it back and pay possibly pay retribution’s depending on the judgement