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

TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 543 posts

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#321

Post by midasuni »

jermaustin1 wrote: post #220
delusional wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you think companies end up violating GPL. Maybe sometimes it's a heartless executive, but a lot of enterprise software devs are completely unconcerned with licenses. If they can get their hands on it, the license doesn't matter.

I had a senior dev at a past job who did this constantly. And when it was found out how much he actually stole, our entire team was laid off and replaced by the company that did the audit. He just refused to believe that software licenses were real. That and I dont think he could actually code anything from scratch without stealing large swaths of code from open source repositories.

He can believe the GPL isn’t real all he wants. In that case how did he justify breaching copyright law?

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#322

Post by dang »

oliwarner wrote: post #70

It's concerning how many self-labelled software engineers on Twitter are chipping in with comments like "it's open source so it's fair game" or "they just need to add attribution".

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29592556.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#324

Post by samtheprogram »

pphysch wrote: post #313
samtheprogram wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moving goal posts would be more like claiming that, because we have evidence Google cooperates with the US Government for some investigations, the US Government has similar influence and control over Google as China does over ByteDance, without any scrutiny or review of the severity of China's influence on ByteDance. Also, to the very point you bring up... recipients of an NSL can file a legal challenge to an NSL whi…

Bottom line: virtually all large (tech) companies are influenced by governments. They will surveil you on behalf of your government. Period. Any attempts to muddy the waters for ideological point-scoring are beside the point. If you want to dig deeper, please bring evidence instead of speculation.

In the original comment you responded to, the CCP put a party member in the ByteDance board of directors.

The CCP is also known to enforce censoring government critical speech on their platforms including TikTok. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-...

National Intelligence Law also allows the CCP to request from businesses any data unlimited in scope without a warrant or possible recourse. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Law_of...

It’s not ideological; one clearly exerts more control than the other, by an order of magnitude. To say the surveillance, censorship, or control on businesses are similar because Google has complied with some government requests (the only evidence _you_ have provided) is naive at best, or disingenuous at worst. Of course the US performs intelligence gathering on its citizens or foreigners for national security. The difference is the scope, oversight, and recourse businesses in the US have.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#325

Post by fortuna86 »

pphysch wrote: post #313
samtheprogram wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moving goal posts would be more like claiming that, because we have evidence Google cooperates with the US Government for some investigations, the US Government has similar influence and control over Google as China does over ByteDance, without any scrutiny or review of the severity of China's influence on ByteDance. Also, to the very point you bring up... recipients of an NSL can file a legal challenge to an NSL whi…

Bottom line: virtually all large (tech) companies are influenced by governments. They will surveil you on behalf of your government. Period. Any attempts to muddy the waters for ideological point-scoring are beside the point. If you want to dig deeper, please bring evidence instead of speculation.

American tech companies can say no to data requests, they often do. Then they publish the details of those requests, publicly.

Chinese companies not only can't say when such requests were made, they cannot reject them either. Every Chinese firm must give all their data to the government, at all times, for any reason (which will remain secret of course).

The fact that you are trying to, as you say, "muddy the waters" (amazing the amount of projection you do) with conflating the two might work as an augmentation tactic (maybe fool a person or two), but logically it is unsound.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#326

Post by dang »

addingnumbers wrote: post #191
dodgepong wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, to be clear, we've decompiled the TikTok LIVE Studio binary and confirmed that it uses code derived from OBS Studio.

If the link took us to evidence of that it would be great. Instead the link takes us to misinformation from a rage-monger who clearly has no understanding of what they are looking at.

Please make your substantive points without name-calling. The latter is against the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and also makes your comments less credible, which is particularly bad if you're correct on the issues (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#327

Post by sophacles »

soheil wrote: post #189

How do we make sure people invoking China-stealing-intellectual-property-yet-again don’t pile on this thread? If this is a case of a company wrongfully using IP we need to very much have a discussion about that topic alone.

Why? What's wrong with pointing out a pattern?

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#329

Post by dang »

andrew_ wrote: post #38

I'd like to see HN shy away from posting twitter threads as news. There's almost always a hard link to the source material, and twitter threads are filled with emotional, truncated, nuance-lacking, trite clips that more often than not do little to promote healthy discussion of a topic. The goal of quality here really is noble.

> There's almost always a hard link to the source material

I don't think that's true. Twitter threads, like it or not, are the medium for a great deal of original insight, public conversation, and ongoing developments.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#330

Post by dang »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #90
galgalesh wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the HN guidelines: > Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—things like article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.

I think the complaint is more about twitter being an unreliable trash news source akin to the daily mirror, rather than pedestrian complaints of how the format is annoying

It's still a tangential annoyance and thus against that guideline.
Post reply on HN