3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI'm not sure, that sounds a lot like the Oracle v Google argument on whether an API is copyrightable.
- lucasyvas 5y agoI 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 agoTo 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 agoProof? Are you a lawyer or a judge?
- junon 5y agoNo. 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 agoBut 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).