471–480 of 543 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say the entire world economy is based on people taking other people's ideas and running with them. Steve Jobs was a Silicon Valley folk hero, no? Was he known for implementing his original ideas?
What ideas did Steve Jobs illegally copy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I thought the latest lawsuit from Software Freedom Conservancy was interesting, they are suing as a third-party beneficiary of the GPL (not as a copyright holder, although they probably could do that too in this case) and seeking specific performance of the GPL violator (Vizio) and of course legal costs, but no damages. The specific performance they want is of course GPL compliance. As part of the case, they are basi…
Not necessarily. The Conservancy chose not to ask for monetary damages, but that doesn't mean their legal theory inherently precludes asking for them; a troll could still do so. Though (IANAL) it seems like it might be hard as a TV buyer to prove that you were damaged in any significant monetary amount.
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.
It is absolutely problematic. Corporations will go to hell and back to make sure their IP rights are respected. The open source community should expect nothing less from them.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the parent poster implicitly meant "as long as it's copyrightable" as a caveat
So copyrightable is 2 char?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the parent poster implicitly meant "as long as it's copyrightable" as a caveat
So copyrightable is 2 char?
[1]https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/copyright-infringement-an...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a "data minig" exception from copyright law, saying that you can use any available code to feed your AI and don't have respect the license. And the output of your AI is yours. So TikTok could claim they either use Copilot, which was fed OBS source, or that they created their own private AI similar to Copilot. Microsoft showed the way. It hasn't been tested at court AFAIK, but if a company can use this defens…
Is there? Can you point it out to me? I’ve looked, but haven’t been able to find it. I imagine it’d be somewhere on this page, in section 107 or later [0], but I haven’t actually found a clause which looks like it either has the intent or side-effect of making “data minig” exempt from having to obey copyright requirements. [0]: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
[1] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright#text-and... [2] That is to say it is not mentioned, and to give you such an exemption it would need to be mentioned. Hasn't been tested in court either as far as I am aware
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a "data minig" exception from copyright law, saying that you can use any available code to feed your AI and don't have respect the license. And the output of your AI is yours. So TikTok could claim they either use Copilot, which was fed OBS source, or that they created their own private AI similar to Copilot. Microsoft showed the way. It hasn't been tested at court AFAIK, but if a company can use this defens…
Is there? Can you point it out to me? I’ve looked, but haven’t been able to find it. I imagine it’d be somewhere on this page, in section 107 or later [0], but I haven’t actually found a clause which looks like it either has the intent or side-effect of making “data minig” exempt from having to obey copyright requirements. [0]: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
This is about EU and UK, but think about it, Microsoft Copilot is already doing it, and so far it seems like they will get away with it. So if feeding an open source code into AI and then using the output in a proprietary application is illegal in the US, then Copilot must be illegal. According to wikipedia in the US it falls under fair use because it is "transformative" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining#Situation_in_the_U... however Copilot has been seen producing verbatim blocks of code matching some open source projects and so far no legal problems. Why couldn't TikTok claim the same?