11 ms·

On commercial forks FOSS projects

83 points by als0 5y ago

draw_down 5y ago
Well, you have to wonder what good these licenses are if there is no way enforce them.
akagusu 5y ago
TikTok and other companies only represent the ethos of the modern society: take whatever you want, give nothing in return.
- indymike 5y ago
  > TikTok and other companies only represent the ethos of the modern society I'm not sure this is a modern phenomena.
haunter 5y ago
Streamlabs is not an illegal commercial fork. They violated the trademarks of OBS but not GPL. The code was always available https://github.com/stream-labs/streamlabs-obs https://github.com/stream-labs/streamlabs-obs Bringing up together with what TikTok did is kinda dishonest
- egil 5y ago
  It's also quite prominently displayed on https://streamlabs.com/ https://streamlabs.com/
- akerl_ 5y ago
  https://streamelements.com/ https://streamelements.com/ appears to be a different thing than StreamLabs, and StreamElements is what the article references as a violation. StreamLabs is only mentioned as part of the ecosystem that would benefit from commercial collaboration in the FOSS process, alongside vanilla OBS users.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - haunter 5y ago
    Article got updated it was there when I've read it but now removed, see the archive >recent (and illegal) commercial forks of a popular FOSS streaming platform called OBS Studio by companies like TikTok, StreamLabs https://web.archive.org/web/20211218121304/https://drewdevault.com/2021/12/18/Commercial-forks-of-FOSS-projects.html https://web.archive.org/web/20211218121304/https://drewdevau...
    - akerl_ 5y ago
      Ah, gotcha. Agreed with your initial comment, and glad to see the article appears to have been amended to match.
  - Xylakant 5y ago
    At first glance I cannot find any indication that streamelements violates the OBS license. They distribute a plug-in for OBS, separately, and that’s usually not considered a GPL violation, even if the plug-in is closed source. A quick google didn’t turn up any discussion alleging a GPL violation either. The article cites no discussion either. See https://streamelements.com/obslive https://streamelements.com/obslive
    - tyingq 5y ago
      >They distribute a plug-in for OBS, separately, and that’s usually not considered a GPL violation, even if the plug-in is closed source. That doesn't appear to be Gnu's position. Obs plugins definitely "share complex data structures". "If the main program and the plugins are a single combined program then this means you must license the plug-in under the GPL..." "If the main program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, and they establish intimate communication by sharing [or shipping] complex data structures...that can make them one single combined program" "If the main program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single combined program" https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#GPLPlugins https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.htm...
yuvalr1 5y ago
More discussions in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29592103 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29592103
jorams 5y ago
It's weird that StreamElements is getting dragged into these discussions. TikTok is involved in a copyright issue. StreamLabs was involved in a trademark issue. StreamElements is in the same industry as StreamLabs, but offers OBS integration through a plug-in.
jimmyvalmer 5y ago
tldr; if you fork gpl code, you have to gpl your fork. People love to hear themselves talk, myself included.
- pacifika 5y ago
  I don’t think that’s quite correct. you need to publish the software before this kicks in. If you fork a web framework and build a website with it for example you don’t have to GPL the website. If you sell or make the fork available then it does, is my understanding.
  - jimmyvalmer 5y ago
    A tree falling in the forest can either make a sound or not. If someone is looking however, it must emit a sound. In that sense your criticism is a vacuous one.
  - CorrectHorseBat 5y ago
    The website would be GPL, but since you're not giving anyone binaries you also don't have to give anyone the source.
  - rhplus 5y ago
    Distribute is the key word. In general, companies can fork GPL code to power the backend of public or internal services, without being required to publish their modifications, but once they distribute the software (allowing binaries/scripts to be downloaded, including it in app, embedding it in firmware...), then they must open up the source.
  - stavros 5y ago
    You do if the license is AGPL 3.
60654 5y ago
A strange article that focuses on a straw man instead of the core problem. > The understanding of intellectual property among gamers and the companies which serve them differs substantailly from that of free software, and literacy in the values and philosophy of free software among this community is very low. This is plainly false. Game devs are thoroughly aware of IP law, and the huge variety of licensing contracts and obligations. I mean, we have to be, otherwise we'd be having constant problems with software and business partners on one end, and with internet randos stealing and cloning our work for their own benefit the other hand. And OSS licenses are typically the least complicated ones - and the values of OSS are very well understood, and many game companies contribute what they can as well. So what's the real problem here? It's that a huge international video streaming conglomerate decided to intentionally violate software licensing conditions, in order to get a product to market faster. This was not an accident due to "lack of understanding". Maybe it was a case of "get it to market first, we'll swap out that component later"? Or maybe "go ahead and bundle it in, nobody will be able to sue us in our jurisdiction"? Who knows. But throwing gamers and game developers under the bus, just because some games-adjacent megacorp is behaving badly, is a really weird look.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  > throwing gamers and game developers under the bus, just because some games-adjectent (sic) megacorp is behaving badly oohhhh not sure about that - games are a team sport, even for "loner" game devs. The strange bedfellows of publishers, engine/tooling makers, and wild-eyed coders and artists is not new.. the personal actions of game developers, let no one tarnish their intelligence! cheats on FOSS license, you bet it happens IMHO
  - 60654 5y ago
    I'm saying that doing something like compiling a flagship OSS application into your core product doesn't happen accidentally due to a "misunderstanding" when you're a huge corporation. P.s. thanks for the typo - fixed!
cycomanic 5y ago
I would argue that the kernel community with their very lax attitude toward GPL violations (let's not sue them, because all those "poor" companies are really not doing this intentionally and we don't want to alienate them) has contributed to the rampant disregard for OSS licenses from commercial companies. If there was real economic consequences companies would think more thoroughly about following licences.

83 points by als0 5y ago

Well, you have to wonder what good these licenses are if there is no way enforce them.

TikTok and other companies only represent the ethos of the modern society: take whatever you want, give nothing in return.

indymike 5y ago
> TikTok and other companies only represent the ethos of the modern society I'm not sure this is a modern phenomena.

haunter 5y ago

Streamlabs is not an illegal commercial fork. They violated the trademarks of OBS but not GPL. The code was always available https://github.com/stream-labs/streamlabs-obs https://github.com/stream-labs/streamlabs-obs Bringing up together with what TikTok did is kinda dishonest

egil 5y ago
It's also quite prominently displayed on https://streamlabs.com/ https://streamlabs.com/
akerl_ 5y ago
https://streamelements.com/ https://streamelements.com/ appears to be a different thing than StreamLabs, and StreamElements is what the article references as a violation. StreamLabs is only mentioned as part of the ecosystem that would benefit from commercial collaboration in the FOSS process, alongside vanilla OBS users.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- haunter 5y ago
  Article got updated it was there when I've read it but now removed, see the archive >recent (and illegal) commercial forks of a popular FOSS streaming platform called OBS Studio by companies like TikTok, StreamLabs https://web.archive.org/web/20211218121304/https://drewdevault.com/2021/12/18/Commercial-forks-of-FOSS-projects.html https://web.archive.org/web/20211218121304/https://drewdevau...
  - akerl_ 5y ago
    Ah, gotcha. Agreed with your initial comment, and glad to see the article appears to have been amended to match.
- Xylakant 5y ago
  At first glance I cannot find any indication that streamelements violates the OBS license. They distribute a plug-in for OBS, separately, and that’s usually not considered a GPL violation, even if the plug-in is closed source. A quick google didn’t turn up any discussion alleging a GPL violation either. The article cites no discussion either. See https://streamelements.com/obslive https://streamelements.com/obslive
  - tyingq 5y ago
    >They distribute a plug-in for OBS, separately, and that’s usually not considered a GPL violation, even if the plug-in is closed source. That doesn't appear to be Gnu's position. Obs plugins definitely "share complex data structures". "If the main program and the plugins are a single combined program then this means you must license the plug-in under the GPL..." "If the main program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, and they establish intimate communication by sharing [or shipping] complex data structures...that can make them one single combined program" "If the main program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single combined program" https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#GPLPlugins https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.htm...

yuvalr1 5y ago

More discussions in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29592103 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29592103

jorams 5y ago

It's weird that StreamElements is getting dragged into these discussions. TikTok is involved in a copyright issue. StreamLabs was involved in a trademark issue. StreamElements is in the same industry as StreamLabs, but offers OBS integration through a plug-in.

jimmyvalmer 5y ago

tldr; if you fork gpl code, you have to gpl your fork. People love to hear themselves talk, myself included.

pacifika 5y ago
I don’t think that’s quite correct. you need to publish the software before this kicks in. If you fork a web framework and build a website with it for example you don’t have to GPL the website. If you sell or make the fork available then it does, is my understanding.
- jimmyvalmer 5y ago
  A tree falling in the forest can either make a sound or not. If someone is looking however, it must emit a sound. In that sense your criticism is a vacuous one.
- CorrectHorseBat 5y ago
  The website would be GPL, but since you're not giving anyone binaries you also don't have to give anyone the source.
- rhplus 5y ago
  Distribute is the key word. In general, companies can fork GPL code to power the backend of public or internal services, without being required to publish their modifications, but once they distribute the software (allowing binaries/scripts to be downloaded, including it in app, embedding it in firmware...), then they must open up the source.
- stavros 5y ago
  You do if the license is AGPL 3.

60654 5y ago

A strange article that focuses on a straw man instead of the core problem. > The understanding of intellectual property among gamers and the companies which serve them differs substantailly from that of free software, and literacy in the values and philosophy of free software among this community is very low. This is plainly false. Game devs are thoroughly aware of IP law, and the huge variety of licensing contracts and obligations. I mean, we have to be, otherwise we'd be having constant problems with software and business partners on one end, and with internet randos stealing and cloning our work for their own benefit the other hand. And OSS licenses are typically the least complicated ones - and the values of OSS are very well understood, and many game companies contribute what they can as well. So what's the real problem here? It's that a huge international video streaming conglomerate decided to intentionally violate software licensing conditions, in order to get a product to market faster. This was not an accident due to "lack of understanding". Maybe it was a case of "get it to market first, we'll swap out that component later"? Or maybe "go ahead and bundle it in, nobody will be able to sue us in our jurisdiction"? Who knows. But throwing gamers and game developers under the bus, just because some games-adjacent megacorp is behaving badly, is a really weird look.

mistrial9 5y ago
> throwing gamers and game developers under the bus, just because some games-adjectent (sic) megacorp is behaving badly oohhhh not sure about that - games are a team sport, even for "loner" game devs. The strange bedfellows of publishers, engine/tooling makers, and wild-eyed coders and artists is not new.. the personal actions of game developers, let no one tarnish their intelligence! cheats on FOSS license, you bet it happens IMHO
- 60654 5y ago
  I'm saying that doing something like compiling a flagship OSS application into your core product doesn't happen accidentally due to a "misunderstanding" when you're a huge corporation. P.s. thanks for the typo - fixed!

cycomanic 5y ago

I would argue that the kernel community with their very lax attitude toward GPL violations (let's not sue them, because all those "poor" companies are really not doing this intentionally and we don't want to alienate them) has contributed to the rampant disregard for OSS licenses from commercial companies. If there was real economic consequences companies would think more thoroughly about following licences.