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

401–410 of 543 posts

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#401

Post by duped »

vineyardmike wrote: post #233
duped wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like the idea of gatekeeping, it's hard enough to hire people. In the US we don't really have licensing for engineers (there is PE, but it's not anything close to ubiquitous). I think it's one of the best parts of our engineering/tech culture. You're an engineer based on the skills you employ to solve the problems you do, not because some body of people gave you a slip of paper that says you can employ those…

In the US, PE has made it so the word “engineer” is legally protected, like “doctor”. No one enforces it for software, so I wonder if it’s even enforceable anymore. But the law is there.

This is heavily dependent on the field and state. PEs are quite rare outside civil engineering.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#402

Post by ted_dunning »

gunapologist99 wrote: post #230
nnvvhh wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not complying with an open source license can be enforced as copyright infringement rather than a contractual dispute.

Please cite an example. Most countries' copyright law tips civil license agreement disputes back into the civil courts, not criminal, with relatively few exceptions.

Your reply is confusing. The previous poster said that GPL could be enforced using copyright law as opposed to filing a contract dispute.

There is clear precedent for that: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170515/06040337368/us-co...

Then you bring in the question of civil vs criminal but the point was copyright versus contract.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#403

Post by NaturalPhallacy »

ShrigmaMale wrote: post #375

Chinas whole economy is built on illegal copying amd stealing ideas, who is surprised? Not me.

>illegal copying amd stealing ideas

I find the notion that ideas can be owned to be anti-humanist. We finally invent something that costs nothing to share or copy, and we immediately invent reasons why we can't.

Imaginary property was invented by and for lawyers.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#404

Post by pabs3 »

jacobr1 wrote: post #371
overeater wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In option 1, when does the license get invalidated? Is it invalidated in the first place because the offending software broke the license? Or is it invalidated after notification from OBS? Or even later, after some amount of time after notification and non-correction? If it's violated before notification, then option 1 is not possible, and option 2 is at the discretion of OBS, so option 3 is the only real legal outco…

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 basically saying that the GPL is a contract and the contract says that third-parties can get benefits and so they want those benefits. Frankly this is a brilliant case and if they win the precedent will allow anyone to sue over GPL violation. If any trolls try it, all they get is GPL compliance, so they have no incentive to try it.

https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#405

Post by lucasyvas »

thebean11 wrote: post #292
randomNumber7 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they swap it out, they have to build code which does exactly the same/ has the same interface. It can still be considered a "derived" work. I'm not a lawyer but that was what op meant.

I'm not sure, that sounds a lot like the Oracle v Google argument on whether an API is copyrightable.

I don't think the API part matters as much. What matters most is that they'd have to rebuild OBS capabilities from scratch and prove there is a clean separation. Otherwise, it's a derived work because separating them makes the TikTok offering useless / not functional.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#406

Post by pabs3 »

wongarsu wrote: post #50
Liquix wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully this is high profile enough to incur some consequences. GPL is ironclad on paper, but the sad reality is unscrupulous/international companies can and do just copy code directly off github into their products with no repercussions

Unless a major contributor of OBS sues, nothing will come of it. That's unfortunately very rare, the only one doing that with any frequency seems to be Harald Welte (one of the iptables developers) [1] 1: https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases#Wel...

Here is a copy of my other comment in the thread, which I think is relevant to your post too:

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 basically saying that the GPL is a contract and the contract says that third-parties can get benefits and so they want those benefits. Frankly this is a brilliant case and if they win the precedent will allow anyone to sue over GPL violation. If any trolls try it, all they get is GPL compliance, so they have no incentive to try it.

https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#407

Post by csee »

NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #403
ShrigmaMale wrote: post #375

Chinas whole economy is built on illegal copying amd stealing ideas, who is surprised? Not me.

>illegal copying amd stealing ideas I find the notion that ideas can be owned to be anti-humanist. We finally invent something that costs nothing to share or copy, and we immediately invent reasons why we can't. Imaginary property was invented by and for lawyers.

If IP wasn't a thing then what would be the incentive to find new IP? Why would anyone make movies, do drug research, etc

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#408

Post by pabs3 »

rrix2 wrote: post #361
nsv wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't the FSF sue on their behalf?

On what grounds? The FSF has no standing to sue like that. The software freedom conservancy has lawyers who will work on copyleft infringement cases like this but a copyright holder still has to step forward as a plaintiff.

The copyright holders can delegate the ability to sue to others, so FSF could do that if delegated. Software Freedom Conservancy have a similar delegation and copyright aggregation programs for Linux and Debian developers:

https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#409

Post by pabs3 »

ShrigmaMale wrote: post #376
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rebutting the argument doesn't rely on tech knowledge. “But, your honour, I didn't copy this person's book! I used the autocomplete on my phone, and it just so happened to produce their 500 000 word novel!” You need tech knowledge to think that's even plausible . Sure, they wouldn't dismiss it out of hand (I think “laughed out of court” is a figure of speech), but I wouldn't be surprised if it got a few giggles.

This would be more like GPT-3 completing a specific novel.

ISTR someone used GPT-3 to autocomplete a chapter of Harry Potter.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#410

Post by pabs3 »

paxys wrote: post #355

Not strictly enforcing license terms only deteriorates the standing of the license. A tweet or blog post is fine, but unless someone is willing to take TikTok to court over this the takeaway is clear - violate GPL if you want and nothing will come out of it.

The principles the FSF and Software Freedom Conservancy use when doing copyleft compliance actions encourage making legal action a last resort for when they refuse to comply. Legal action is a costly and time consuming process, so it makes sense to avoid it where possible.

https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...

    Legal action is a last resort. Compliance actions are primarily education and assistance processes to aid those who are not following the license. Most GPL violations occur by mistake, without ill will. Copyleft enforcement should assist these distributors to become helpful participants in the free software projects on which they rely. Occasionally, violations are intentional or the result of severe negligence, and there is no duty to be empathetic in those cases. Even then, a lawsuit is a last resort; mutually agreed terms that fix (or at least cease) further distribution and address damage already done are much better than a battle in court.
Post reply on HN