521–530 of 543 posts
So people that have ripped off OBS so far and violated GPL include TikTok, StreamLabs (Logitech), and StreamElements. Any other people I missed?
Streamlabs and Streamelements have not violated the GPL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, please. 2+2=4 is not copyrightable. I’d further that any program in a CS101 textbook is equally uncopyrightable. Computer programs are only copyrightable to the degree that they contain creative expression. Purely functional expressions are not copyrightable, regardless of the creative effort to derive them. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1342160
> 2+2=4 is not copyrightable. "2+2=4" is a computer program as much as "Hello world" is a literary work: you need to use better strawmen. > I’d further that any program in a CS101 textbook is equally uncopyrightable. Are you suggesting that the computer program that is the subject of this thread has the same creativity level as "2+2=4" or that of "any program in a CS101 textbook"? Also, notice that your opinion on wh…
Oracle tried to hang Google with copied code for max(x,y), which returned the greater of two parameters. That’s what you get when every single byte of software is a “literary work” worthy of independent copyright protection. Bullshit.
The issue is when does an expression of creativity manifested in code become uniquely copyrightable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2+2=4 is not copyrightable. "2+2=4" is a computer program as much as "Hello world" is a literary work: you need to use better strawmen. > I’d further that any program in a CS101 textbook is equally uncopyrightable. Are you suggesting that the computer program that is the subject of this thread has the same creativity level as "2+2=4" or that of "any program in a CS101 textbook"? Also, notice that your opinion on wh…
Ok, I’ll put it this way. If every homework submission for a particular CS101 assignment was essentially identical, it’s not creative, it’s functional. That’s what I mean by 2+2=4. Oracle tried to hang Google with copied code for max(x,y), which returned the greater of two parameters. That’s what you get when every single byte of software is a “literary work” worthy of independent copyright protection. Bullshit. The…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't realize streamlabs was logitech. Damn. Going to have to find a new go to wireless keyboard recommendation for media pcs instead of the k400. Should also stop singing the praises of the Pro Superlight...
You just recommended both of them... Off to a bad start...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Streamlabs and Streamelements have not violated the GPL.
Streamlabs did (StreamlabsOBS is OBS with features turned off/replaced), but StreamElements is just a set of plugins for OBS.
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
Though right now it's kind of an unintended assist
Earlier quoted context omitted.
American economy with the likes of youtube and facebook are built on copying and stealing copyrighted video and audio. That's literally how youtube captured all the users: become the go-to place for anyone to upload videos, also spreading copies of music videos. Facebook captures a lot of video viewers by not controlling video sources either in a similar way.
There’s no evidence that they are doing that intentionally or deliberately. Sure some creators do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2+2=4 is not copyrightable. "2+2=4" is a computer program as much as "Hello world" is a literary work: you need to use better strawmen. > I’d further that any program in a CS101 textbook is equally uncopyrightable. Are you suggesting that the computer program that is the subject of this thread has the same creativity level as "2+2=4" or that of "any program in a CS101 textbook"? Also, notice that your opinion on wh…
Ok, I’ll put it this way. If every homework submission for a particular CS101 assignment was essentially identical, it’s not creative, it’s functional. That’s what I mean by 2+2=4. Oracle tried to hang Google with copied code for max(x,y), which returned the greater of two parameters. That’s what you get when every single byte of software is a “literary work” worthy of independent copyright protection. Bullshit. The…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2+2=4 is not copyrightable. "2+2=4" is a computer program as much as "Hello world" is a literary work: you need to use better strawmen. > I’d further that any program in a CS101 textbook is equally uncopyrightable. Are you suggesting that the computer program that is the subject of this thread has the same creativity level as "2+2=4" or that of "any program in a CS101 textbook"? Also, notice that your opinion on wh…
Ok, I’ll put it this way. If every homework submission for a particular CS101 assignment was essentially identical, it’s not creative, it’s functional. That’s what I mean by 2+2=4. Oracle tried to hang Google with copied code for max(x,y), which returned the greater of two parameters. That’s what you get when every single byte of software is a “literary work” worthy of independent copyright protection. Bullshit. The…
The issue of whether something is creative enough to warrant authorship rights or any other type of IP rights can be, as you know, murky, and sometimes has to be decided in court. Taking your example, if Google literally copied the code verbatim (rather than re-writing it themselves), then... technically... I guess it is a copyright violation (though not something serious).
The thing is... when you have something trivial that can be efficiently implemented in a very limited (and trivial) set of ways (e.g. 2+2=4, the definition of max(x,y)), it's easy to argue that it is plausible that you didn't copy the code (i.e. that you just independently reimplemented it yourself and it accidentally ended up looking exactly like someone else's implementation). On the other hand, when you have a large codebase, it becomes much harder to argue that (unless you use some obscene levels of obfuscation... and, even then...).
Are you really trying to argue that TikTok didn't just blatantly take large pieces of code from this opensource project? I didn't look into it too hard, but it seems like OBS might have a case here, unless we're assuming that this codebase has the complexity level of "2+2=4" and that TikTok just accidentally it.
Have a nice day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
My experience in companies using FOSS licensed code is a bit dated, but back then their opinion was more close to "we can do as we want with their code, those are just a bunch of hippies". I'm sure things have changed in almost two decades, but the sooner TikTok gets a letter from a law firm, the better.