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

511–520 of 543 posts

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#511

Post by mr_toad »

adolph wrote: post #218
mysterydip wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a company the size of tiktok want to depend on some open source project maintaining a URL? Would they be liable if it instead redirected to malware?

> a company the size of tiktok Is made up of smaller teams composed of individuals who may or may not take shortcuts and make good decisions on behalf of their company. If the choice is between "executive said 'hey use this open source in secret'" or "programmer took shortcut," my bet is on the latter.

And management never reads the code.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#512

Post by mr_toad »

alkonaut wrote: post #482
okprod wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are many sanctions a court could impose. Including forcing Apple & Google to remove the app from their stores.

It will never get that far. It will be settled.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#513

Post by mr_toad »

viktorcode wrote: post #348
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".

Most likely that's the reason of OBS' code ending up in TikTok's product. Some engineer disregarded the license with no insidious intention to steal.

It’s even possible that the developer tried to get the product to be compliant and was ignored.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#514

Post by kittywav »

randombits0 wrote: post #504
kittywav wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Computer programs are as copyrightable as literary works, and generally are counted as such within the context of copyright (see https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/295166 ). Please point out where it is determined that one has to demonstrate the "creativity" of a literary work before it is protected by copyright laws.

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 whether something is creative enough or not is pretty much irrelevant as far as copyright law is concerned.

> Purely functional expressions are not copyrightable, regardless of the creative effort to derive them.

Ok, so now you only need to demonstrate that the thing we are talking about (and not some other arbitrary hypothetical example) is a "purely functional expression" and not a "creative expression". Good luck with that.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#515

Post by duffsdevice »

trynewideas wrote: post #32
mynameismon wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relavant Tweet: https://twitter.com/dodgepong/status/1471522226520346632

See also https://twitter.com/dodgepong/status/1471528656199692292 and https://twitter.com/dodgepong/status/1471524716477300737 too twitter; didn't read: there's apparently OBS code evident in the decompiled app, and other GPL code as well, and OBS found out independently and are working to resolve it

> and OBS found out independently and are working to resolve it

What has OBS to resolve there? They could send a letter with an offer for a special license for one million dollars. If all open source contributors agree on thqt and have worked out how to share the fee.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#516

Post by alkonaut »

mr_toad wrote: post #512
alkonaut wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are many sanctions a court could impose. Including forcing Apple & Google to remove the app from their stores. It will never get that far. It will be settled.

If this is just a snippet copied then I assume the settlement will be “oops, the beta contained a class with code but we removed it” (I.e anonymized the code).

If it’s more substantial use of the OBS code then I guess it could be more involved. My money is on that there won’t even be a legal process.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#518

Post by citizenpaul »

leodriesch wrote: post #263
citizenpaul wrote: post #120

TikTok is in China. There is no such thing as illegal forks their. Half their economy is based on stealing IP and mass producing it cheaply. Any laws or legality is just lip service to shut up companies and governments that complain.

The American operations of TikTok have to follow American law and have to follow orders given by an American court. They will then have to comply or leave the American market.

I knew someone would mention this. You are wrong but I'm not going to try to explain international espionage, fraud and laundering in a comment post.

Re: TikTok streaming software is an illegal fork of OBS

#519

Post by randomNumber7 »

junon wrote: post #487
randomNumber7 wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But you heard of google vs oracle, right? The curt didn't answer the question if reimplementing the api was copyright infringement.... It only ruled it's fair use (under the assumption it was copyright infringement).
Post reply on HN