Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action

gitlab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 229 posts

Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action

#31

Post by xyst »

kattagarian wrote: post #4

Why would fedora have their own version of OBS studio when the package is already supported by the official team on flathub? Isn't this exactly the reason why flatpak was created, to avoid all the needless packaging that every distro had to do in order to install the program?

I wasted my time browsing through the drama.

The idea behind it is really for corporate uses of Fedora/GNOME. Sysadmins, through Fedora Flatpack, can re-package certain software from Flathub in accordance with their draconian corporate policies.

As a person that has had to endure stupid corporate policies and since Fedora is _mostly_ used in corporate workstation. I can understand this.

What I don't understand why it's the _default_ to prefer Fedora Flatpack software over Flathub. For people that are just getting into linux, I can see why that's painful and the UX to be terrible.

"I installed Z software. It installed some junk re-package. I only realized it installed junk re-package after a week of investigation. Installing it from different source and now it works. Thanks, Fedora! I wasted a week of my time!"

Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action

#32

Post by akerl_ »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #26
ddtaylor wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's free and open software we specifically give the right to modify and redistribute.

But not the right to distribute with an intact trademark. No open source license provides that right. If the Blender Foundation one day decided that only the Windows and Mac App Stores can distribute Blender, yes, Linux distributions would be forced to use a different name.

Is there legal precedent for that claim?

Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action

#33

Post by diego_sandoval »

Last time I checked, Flathub was rife with unofficial packages posing as official ones (using the URL of upstream, with no verification, when the upstream dev has no association to the package).

That's the main reason I never took Flatpak seriously.

Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action

#34

Post by akerl_ »

remram wrote: post #30
akerl_ wrote: post #18

Given that OBS is GPL licensed, any legal action would have to be trademark-based, right? It feels like they'd have a hard time making that case, since package repositories are pretty clearly not representing themselves as the owners of, or sponsored by, the software they package.

From the linked comment: > This is a formal request to remove all of our branding, including but not limited to, our name, our logo, any additional IP belonging to the OBS Project Honestly it sounds very reasonable, if you want to fork it's fine, but don't have people report bugs upstream if you're introducing them.

I mean, I think the right fix is just for Fedora to stop packaging their own version. But I think that's about being good people; I don't think there's a strong legal argument here for forcing Fedora to do that.

Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action

#35

Post by Vortigaunt »

kattagarian wrote: post #4

Why would fedora have their own version of OBS studio when the package is already supported by the official team on flathub? Isn't this exactly the reason why flatpak was created, to avoid all the needless packaging that every distro had to do in order to install the program?

From what I've read the Fedora project has an interest in providing solely open source and non patent encumbered software like codecs. Which sounds like something OBS may infringe on

Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action

#36

Post by gjsman-1000 »

akerl_ wrote: post #32
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But not the right to distribute with an intact trademark. No open source license provides that right. If the Blender Foundation one day decided that only the Windows and Mac App Stores can distribute Blender, yes, Linux distributions would be forced to use a different name.

Is there legal precedent for that claim?

Absolutely.

1. Just read the license. Never is a trademark granted. Source code can and is granted completely independently of trademarks (otherwise, as one example, how does Apple license iOS SDKs without permission to use the name “Apple”? It’s just a more stringent license than a FOSS one.)

2. It’s already happened, Debian wanted to change Firefox, Mozilla said no, lo and behold we had “Iceweasel” for a decade.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian%E2%80%93Mozilla_trade...

3. Trademarks never expire, unlike patents, trade secrets, etc. Unlike source code, the trademark owner has near-absolute leeway in how they are used.

Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action

#37

Post by xyst »

stolen_biscuit wrote: post #9

Does anyone have more context for the name-calling and poor communication from the Fedora team? Seems like pretty poor behaviour from them if true

Not really and I wasted my time browsing a massive thread of non-sense where people were arguing for and against "Fedora Flatpack is better than Flathub" software and vice-versa.

Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action

#38

Post by lmm »

akerl_ wrote: post #25
dismalaf wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given that OBS is GPL licensed, any legal action would have to be trademark-based, right? Yup. The issue isn't the code but misrepresentation of the origin. It's like back in the day when Debian "forked" Firefox for reasons... Edit - worded it poorly - never meant to imply Debian did anything wrong, only that they changed the branding to respect Firefox's trademark and avoid the situation that OBS is threatening Fe…

That's sort of the difference, isn't it? Debian forked Firefox and changed the code, so they had to rename it. But this doesn't look like changing the code, it's building it with different versions of its dependencies / different wrapping around it. Maybe there's a case here, but it feels pretty tenuous.

> Debian forked Firefox and changed the code

Debian didn't actually change the code, but they consider the right to change the code important, and don't accept Debian-specific exceptions.

Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action

#39

Post by exsomet »

wilg wrote: post #20

Lots of Linux-related drama on HN lately. Maybe someone should offer free conflict resolution classes for libre software maintainers.

OSCR, I’m building the pitch deck as we speak.

AI generated SaaS app launching in Q2 and we’ll IPO later this year.

Re: The OBS Project is threatening Fedora Linux with legal action

#40

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

akerl_ wrote: post #25
dismalaf wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given that OBS is GPL licensed, any legal action would have to be trademark-based, right? Yup. The issue isn't the code but misrepresentation of the origin. It's like back in the day when Debian "forked" Firefox for reasons... Edit - worded it poorly - never meant to imply Debian did anything wrong, only that they changed the branding to respect Firefox's trademark and avoid the situation that OBS is threatening Fe…

That's sort of the difference, isn't it? Debian forked Firefox and changed the code, so they had to rename it. But this doesn't look like changing the code, it's building it with different versions of its dependencies / different wrapping around it. Maybe there's a case here, but it feels pretty tenuous.

That's "changing the code."

The main issue that I see, is that OBS doesn't want to be held responsible for the Fedora version, which is different from the "officially-supported" OBS version. They didn't modify anything other than the build, to exclude certain dependencies.

But modifying the build, is modifying the code. They are allowed to do that, but they probably aren't allowed to slap the OBS name on the result.

Post reply on HN