5 ms·

OBS is willing to work with TikTok to get them into compliance. That would either mean open-sourcing the software or paying for a license.

bilbo0s 5y ago
At this point, it's not even clear to me that paying would rectify the legal issue with respect to the GPL. It's an amalgamation of source contributions over time. Any one contributor could, in theory, refuse any consideration other than an open sourcing of the software. Of course, now I think about it, that could be an easy problem to fix. They say every man has a number.
- ghusbands 5y ago
  Almost all relicensing efforts are actually most hindered by not being able to contact people. If you can't contact someone who holds the copyright to something, you can't change the licensing rights over it. A lot of projects have copyright assignment, to allow for relicensing. They typically ask for you to assign copyright to them or to a company they control, so that they can still relicense as they see fit, in future.
  - dodgepong 5y ago
    It's worth noting that if someone can't be contacted, the maintainers aren't out of luck yet. If the contribution is deleted (and then possibly reimplemented later by someone with whom the project _is_ in contact) then the issue is resolved. It can be a lot of work, though, depending on the size and importance of the contribution, and reimplementing the code in a way that doesn't derive from the original submission can be difficult or ambiguous.
SergeAx 5y ago
Is there a way to buy oneself out of GPL license? I beleive there's not.
- throwaway934876 5y ago
  The authors can re-license right, even for one (paying) customer? They could also pay for the promise not to sue? IANAL.
  - daptaq 5y ago
    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.
    - pabs3 5y ago
      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 https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
      - daptaq 5y ago
        Yes, that was what I had in mind. Thank you!
    - vlovich123 5y ago
      I’m fact it’s only the users who have standing to request the source. The author’s have standing to sue for copyright infringement.
      - colejohnson66 5y ago
        Not at all true. It's copyright infringement if you're not following a license contract, of which the GPL is.
        vlovich123 5y ago
        The GPL contract only says you have to distribute source to the users you give binaries to. The only people who can ask for said source are the people receiving those binaries and the only people who have standing to sue when that doesn’t happen is the copyright owners. That’s why you can use GPL software in your private CI system and not need to give anyone the source code.
dodgepong 5y ago
Paying for a license would be nearly impossible, as the OBS team would need every contributor to sign a CLA to give the OBS team the rights to relicense/dual-license the OBS code base.
- azeirah 5y ago
  Would be nice if the contributors could get some money for it
  - telesilla 5y ago
    The result would be hundreds of OBS closed source clones that do not contribute back to the project. It would be a disaster.
    - Xylakant 5y ago
      As long as they all pay a reasonable license fee, I don’t see a disaster. The OBS project could then pay developers to build open source features that benefit all. A lot of the forks would likely contain features that are not if interest to other users anyways.
fsckboy 5y ago
> That would either mean open-sourcing the software or paying for a license no, in general it means TikTok rewriting those portions of the software themselves
- myself248 5y ago
  So they can just steal until they get caught, make a bazillion bucks, and get off scot-free if they write their own code after getting caught?
  - xvector 5y ago
    I guarantee you every big tech company "steals" GPL code without intending to steal. Most end up amending their mistake when they realize they misused a license.

bilbo0s 5y ago

At this point, it's not even clear to me that paying would rectify the legal issue with respect to the GPL. It's an amalgamation of source contributions over time. Any one contributor could, in theory, refuse any consideration other than an open sourcing of the software. Of course, now I think about it, that could be an easy problem to fix. They say every man has a number.

ghusbands 5y ago
Almost all relicensing efforts are actually most hindered by not being able to contact people. If you can't contact someone who holds the copyright to something, you can't change the licensing rights over it. A lot of projects have copyright assignment, to allow for relicensing. They typically ask for you to assign copyright to them or to a company they control, so that they can still relicense as they see fit, in future.
- dodgepong 5y ago
  It's worth noting that if someone can't be contacted, the maintainers aren't out of luck yet. If the contribution is deleted (and then possibly reimplemented later by someone with whom the project _is_ in contact) then the issue is resolved. It can be a lot of work, though, depending on the size and importance of the contribution, and reimplementing the code in a way that doesn't derive from the original submission can be difficult or ambiguous.

SergeAx 5y ago

Is there a way to buy oneself out of GPL license? I beleive there's not.

throwaway934876 5y ago
The authors can re-license right, even for one (paying) customer? They could also pay for the promise not to sue? IANAL.
- daptaq 5y ago
  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.
  - pabs3 5y ago
    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 https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
    - daptaq 5y ago
      Yes, that was what I had in mind. Thank you!
  - vlovich123 5y ago
    I’m fact it’s only the users who have standing to request the source. The author’s have standing to sue for copyright infringement.
    - colejohnson66 5y ago
      Not at all true. It's copyright infringement if you're not following a license contract, of which the GPL is.
      - vlovich123 5y ago
        The GPL contract only says you have to distribute source to the users you give binaries to. The only people who can ask for said source are the people receiving those binaries and the only people who have standing to sue when that doesn’t happen is the copyright owners. That’s why you can use GPL software in your private CI system and not need to give anyone the source code.

dodgepong 5y ago

Paying for a license would be nearly impossible, as the OBS team would need every contributor to sign a CLA to give the OBS team the rights to relicense/dual-license the OBS code base.

azeirah 5y ago
Would be nice if the contributors could get some money for it
- telesilla 5y ago
  The result would be hundreds of OBS closed source clones that do not contribute back to the project. It would be a disaster.
  - Xylakant 5y ago
    As long as they all pay a reasonable license fee, I don’t see a disaster. The OBS project could then pay developers to build open source features that benefit all. A lot of the forks would likely contain features that are not if interest to other users anyways.

fsckboy 5y ago

> That would either mean open-sourcing the software or paying for a license no, in general it means TikTok rewriting those portions of the software themselves

myself248 5y ago
So they can just steal until they get caught, make a bazillion bucks, and get off scot-free if they write their own code after getting caught?
- xvector 5y ago
  I guarantee you every big tech company "steals" GPL code without intending to steal. Most end up amending their mistake when they realize they misused a license.