4 ms·

In almost all cases, TikTok's offering would be considered a derived work because you cannot swap out the OBS part for another and still have it work. So they a

In almost all cases, TikTok's offering would be considered a derived work because you cannot swap out the OBS part for another and still have it work. So they are likely in full violation unless they agree to open source all their code. Seems like a pretty open and shut case to be honest - that is, if they intend to pursue legal action and the powers that be rule appropriately.

_fat_santa 5y ago
Like others have said though, any derivative works of OBS must also contain the same GPL License. It was pointed out in that thread that Reddit also forked OBS for their live steaming but they didn't get into hot water because they followed the rules and open sourced their software like the License required them to.
thebean11 5y ago
I'm out of my depth here, but what makes you say they can't swap out the OBS part for something else? Do you mean they can't swap it without modifying the rest of the code, or can't swap it at all?
- randomNumber7 5y ago
  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.
  - thebean11 5y ago
    I'm not sure, that sounds a lot like the Oracle v Google argument on whether an API is copyrightable.
    - lucasyvas 5y ago
      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.
  - onphonenow 5y ago
    To hell with this open source stuff then, the STUPID idea that these interfaces are copyrightable is total garbage. That said, we should be able so sue open source developers - a fair bit of open source is reverse engineering interfaces (drivers, ACAPI, power management and more). If this violates the copyright of the underlying proprietary firmware - bring on the lawsuits!
  - junon 5y ago
    > 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.
    - randomNumber7 5y ago
      Proof? Are you a lawyer or a judge?
      - junon 5y ago
        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.
        randomNumber7 5y ago
        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).
dathinab 5y ago
Given that it only affects a beta client they could: - pay damage for the violation the the client, given that's only beta that would likely not amount to much - and stop the beta program, while replacing their OBS dependency with something completely different.
- DannyBee 5y ago
  This is not how it works. Courts do not care that it's a beta.
  - seanhunter 5y ago
    Courts care about "equity" (restoring fairness). So the scope of the breach determines what is a fair remedy to make the plaintiff whole. A breach in a beta release (with lower circulation) would seem to be lower impact than a breach in a production release in that context.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      Are you saying this based on actual knowledge of how this stuff works? I ask, because the person you're responding to definitely is (and also I like to keep track of who the lawyers are on HN.)
      - dathinab 5y ago
        I'm definitely not a lawyer, but many things in law (especially around copyright) are based on "damage done". Like if you distribute one illegal copy (1) you will get a very different penalty then if you distributed 1 Million illegal copies. In case of TickTok it being in beta does indeed not matter but what matters is that it being in beta entailed it being used by a limited amount of users for a rather short time (in this case). (1): It should be noted here that I heard of cases where copyright lawyers liked to argue that one copy was further distributed an lead to many many more copies, and in turn damage done. I have no idea how far this is the case in practice and how far this is legally successful. Either way in this case the infringing product seems to be rather tightly bound to a non-infringing service, including some license key/beta key mechanism. So it shouldn't matter in this case, I guess.

_fat_santa 5y ago

Like others have said though, any derivative works of OBS must also contain the same GPL License. It was pointed out in that thread that Reddit also forked OBS for their live steaming but they didn't get into hot water because they followed the rules and open sourced their software like the License required them to.

thebean11 5y ago

I'm out of my depth here, but what makes you say they can't swap out the OBS part for something else? Do you mean they can't swap it without modifying the rest of the code, or can't swap it at all?

randomNumber7 5y ago
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.
- thebean11 5y ago
  I'm not sure, that sounds a lot like the Oracle v Google argument on whether an API is copyrightable.
  - lucasyvas 5y ago
    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.
- onphonenow 5y ago
  To hell with this open source stuff then, the STUPID idea that these interfaces are copyrightable is total garbage. That said, we should be able so sue open source developers - a fair bit of open source is reverse engineering interfaces (drivers, ACAPI, power management and more). If this violates the copyright of the underlying proprietary firmware - bring on the lawsuits!
- junon 5y ago
  > 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.
  - randomNumber7 5y ago
    Proof? Are you a lawyer or a judge?
    - junon 5y ago
      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.
      - randomNumber7 5y ago
        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).

dathinab 5y ago

Given that it only affects a beta client they could: - pay damage for the violation the the client, given that's only beta that would likely not amount to much - and stop the beta program, while replacing their OBS dependency with something completely different.

DannyBee 5y ago
This is not how it works. Courts do not care that it's a beta.
- seanhunter 5y ago
  Courts care about "equity" (restoring fairness). So the scope of the breach determines what is a fair remedy to make the plaintiff whole. A breach in a beta release (with lower circulation) would seem to be lower impact than a breach in a production release in that context.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Are you saying this based on actual knowledge of how this stuff works? I ask, because the person you're responding to definitely is (and also I like to keep track of who the lawyers are on HN.)
    - dathinab 5y ago
      I'm definitely not a lawyer, but many things in law (especially around copyright) are based on "damage done". Like if you distribute one illegal copy (1) you will get a very different penalty then if you distributed 1 Million illegal copies. In case of TickTok it being in beta does indeed not matter but what matters is that it being in beta entailed it being used by a limited amount of users for a rather short time (in this case). (1): It should be noted here that I heard of cases where copyright lawyers liked to argue that one copy was further distributed an lead to many many more copies, and in turn damage done. I have no idea how far this is the case in practice and how far this is legally successful. Either way in this case the infringing product seems to be rather tightly bound to a non-infringing service, including some license key/beta key mechanism. So it shouldn't matter in this case, I guess.