5 ms·

From another site a user commented that it might have proprietary modifications to ffmpeg which is LGPL/GPL (I think?). Would a leak be considered to be distrib

From another site a user commented that it might have proprietary modifications to ffmpeg which is LGPL/GPL (I think?). Would a leak be considered to be distribution, could others legally take these modifications and merge them into the upstream project? I imagine other free software might have modifications too.

lights0123 5y ago
No. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#StolenCopy https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#StolenCopy
- bla15e 5y ago
  But the source was not stolen, merely copied
  - NineStarPoint 5y ago
    An important distinction indeed. Intellectual Property theft will get you in much bigger trouble with the Feds than just stealing something does.
  - zamadatix 5y ago
    Hence the anchor being "#StolenCopy".
  - Thorrez 5y ago
    Leaked might be a better word. It was information that was supposed to be secret and became public.
- mijoharas 5y ago
  Interesting! I'd never thought about those kind of cases. (I also like how nice and clear that FAQ is).
sydthrowaway 5y ago
Can you use GPL code internally (ie run your backend) if you never publish it?
- bo1024 5y ago
  Let me add something to be clear. As I understand it, free software was always happy to let you or your company modify and use software for your own use. The philosophy was always about respecting the users of the software, so the licenses don't kick in until someone else uses it. The problem addressed by AGPL is that someone can use your software over a network connection without running it themselves: a loophole in GPL.
- bo1024 5y ago
  I believe so, and this is why the AGPL was created: > The GNU General Public License permits making a modified version and letting the public access it on a server without ever releasing its source code to the public. > The GNU Affero General Public License is designed specifically to ensure that, in such cases, the modified source code becomes available to the community. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
  - sydthrowaway 5y ago
    So in theory, FAANG could make billions of a random person's GPL'd code and they'd never know.
    - thatfunkymunki 5y ago
      Spoiler alert: vast majority of FAANG systems run on Linux, making billions for them.
      - mkr-hn 5y ago
        Don't they also provide a lot of developer time through patches?
shiado 5y ago
The IP issues with the leak are interesting. There's got to be some Stack Overflow copy/pastes, perhaps some variable name changed license violating code, and I wonder if patent trolls or even rightful patent owners can now sue based on how backend code works in a way where they had no way to sue if they didn't know how it worked from interacting with a frontend.
- akersten 5y ago
  > patent trolls or even rightful patent owners What's the difference? But seriously, if it takes trolling through the code to determine that Twitch's math violated their special way of doing math that no one else should get to use, it's just more evidence that software patents aren't helping protect or encourage innovation (else the violation would have been apparent from using the service). It would instead clearly be a "hah, gotcha, turns out we patented the linked-list-inside-a-hashmap construction you've got going on here, pay up! Only we can put the Legos together in that way!"
- notsureaboutpg 5y ago
  No, you won't be able to sue if you claim that, based on the leaked source code, your IP was infringed because leaked (e.g. stolen) source code won't be admissible in court as evidence
- BeFlatXIII 5y ago
  The real fun begins when the leaked Twitch code makes its way into new SO answers for others to copy.
  - kevinsundar 5y ago
    Or when GitHub copilot starts suggesting it lol.
    - BeFlatXIII 5y ago
      The merger between copyright laundering and citogenesis.
MrStonedOne 5y ago
The GPL can't actually force them to license their downstream changes, just revoke their ability to use the upstream project if they don't, and sue for infringement for damages.

lights0123 5y ago

No. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#StolenCopy https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#StolenCopy

bla15e 5y ago
But the source was not stolen, merely copied
- NineStarPoint 5y ago
  An important distinction indeed. Intellectual Property theft will get you in much bigger trouble with the Feds than just stealing something does.
- zamadatix 5y ago
  Hence the anchor being "#StolenCopy".
- Thorrez 5y ago
  Leaked might be a better word. It was information that was supposed to be secret and became public.
mijoharas 5y ago
Interesting! I'd never thought about those kind of cases. (I also like how nice and clear that FAQ is).

sydthrowaway 5y ago

Can you use GPL code internally (ie run your backend) if you never publish it?

bo1024 5y ago
Let me add something to be clear. As I understand it, free software was always happy to let you or your company modify and use software for your own use. The philosophy was always about respecting the users of the software, so the licenses don't kick in until someone else uses it. The problem addressed by AGPL is that someone can use your software over a network connection without running it themselves: a loophole in GPL.
bo1024 5y ago
I believe so, and this is why the AGPL was created: > The GNU General Public License permits making a modified version and letting the public access it on a server without ever releasing its source code to the public. > The GNU Affero General Public License is designed specifically to ensure that, in such cases, the modified source code becomes available to the community. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
- sydthrowaway 5y ago
  So in theory, FAANG could make billions of a random person's GPL'd code and they'd never know.
  - thatfunkymunki 5y ago
    Spoiler alert: vast majority of FAANG systems run on Linux, making billions for them.
    - mkr-hn 5y ago
      Don't they also provide a lot of developer time through patches?

shiado 5y ago

The IP issues with the leak are interesting. There's got to be some Stack Overflow copy/pastes, perhaps some variable name changed license violating code, and I wonder if patent trolls or even rightful patent owners can now sue based on how backend code works in a way where they had no way to sue if they didn't know how it worked from interacting with a frontend.

akersten 5y ago
> patent trolls or even rightful patent owners What's the difference? But seriously, if it takes trolling through the code to determine that Twitch's math violated their special way of doing math that no one else should get to use, it's just more evidence that software patents aren't helping protect or encourage innovation (else the violation would have been apparent from using the service). It would instead clearly be a "hah, gotcha, turns out we patented the linked-list-inside-a-hashmap construction you've got going on here, pay up! Only we can put the Legos together in that way!"
notsureaboutpg 5y ago
No, you won't be able to sue if you claim that, based on the leaked source code, your IP was infringed because leaked (e.g. stolen) source code won't be admissible in court as evidence
BeFlatXIII 5y ago
The real fun begins when the leaked Twitch code makes its way into new SO answers for others to copy.
- kevinsundar 5y ago
  Or when GitHub copilot starts suggesting it lol.
  - BeFlatXIII 5y ago
    The merger between copyright laundering and citogenesis.

MrStonedOne 5y ago

The GPL can't actually force them to license their downstream changes, just revoke their ability to use the upstream project if they don't, and sue for infringement for damages.