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

481–490 of 543 posts

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#481

Post by trickstra »

grayfaced wrote: post #460
trickstra wrote: post #437

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…

Local exceptions are a bad bet when dealing with global distribution.

I really don't think Microsoft Copilot is relying on a local exception.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#482

Post by alkonaut »

okprod wrote: post #448
alkonaut wrote: post #369

Is it clear whether it's a "fork" (i.e. the entirety or a significant portion of the code is used in the derivative work), or whether they just found some utility snippet in an open source project and forgot to wash it? Also isn't TikTok Chinese?

Also isn't TikTok Chinese What's your point?

That Chinese corporations traditionally don’t care much for IP law. I doubt that there would be any way to even target their operation in western countries.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#483

Post by randomNumber7 »

junon wrote: post #429
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.

> It can still be considered a "derived" work Incorrect. It cannot, unless they copy it. You may freely take inspiration from GPL works. The GPL is not a patent.

Proof? Are you a lawyer or a judge?

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#484

Post by daptaq »

pabs3 wrote: post #420
daptaq wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember reading that it should be able for users to sue instead of the author, if they cannot ccess the source of GPL'ed software.

The Software Freedom Conservancy are trying to set that precedent right now in their lawsuit against Vizio for GPL violations in their televisions: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html

Yes, that was what I had in mind. Thank you!

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#485

Post by esarbe »

okprod wrote: post #447
ShrigmaMale wrote: post #375

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

What was your comment on HN when the FSF successfully sued Cisco? Please share link here.

Are you trying to expose some ideological inconsitency so that you can cry 'Ha! Gotcha!'?

What if the GP didn't condone the FSF suing Cisco, but then recognized they were wrong and thus changed their mind?

What is your comment supposed to achieve? And how is it a worthwhile contribution?

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#486

Post by [deleted] »

nick__m wrote: post #245
Vinnl wrote: post #205

I think it's useful for developers to have a rough mental model of how open source licensing works, as it's not that complicated yet affects what you can legally do, both as a user of open source software as well as as a contributor. Coincidentally I recently did a Twitter thread on it, in case anyone's interested. I know not everyone like the medium, but at least it's also posted on Mastodon, so there's that: https:…

There is less correct but funnier comparison. It's a cartoon comparing the various licences as if they were a dad: http://www.wtfpl.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/wtfpl-strip.... TikTok probably tought that OBS was licensed under the WTFPL ;)

[deleted]

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#487

Post by junon »

randomNumber7 wrote: post #483
junon wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It can still be considered a "derived" work Incorrect. It cannot, unless they copy it. You may freely take inspiration from GPL works. The GPL is not a patent.

Proof? Are you a lawyer or a judge?

No. I've read the license text though, and I've read countless articles on the GPL. You are welcome to research it yourself to confirm this if you'd like.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#488

Post by Vinnl »

bragr wrote: post #358
Vinnl wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The authors of the software can create an additional licence that they could buy. Of course, that gets more difficult if there are many different, hard-to-contact authors.

It's worth noting that this is why many commercially minded projects require you assign copyright to them before they'll accept your contributions.

Yep! Or just to switch licences in general, like LLVM is doing, as I pointed out https://fosstodon.org/@VincentTunru/107382361929521089.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#489

Post by liamtuohy »

csee wrote: post #407
NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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

500 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute, we dont need economic incentive to make movies.
Post reply on HN