4 ms·

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/stre

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...
    - Drakim 5y ago
      How exactly does that work, what if the plugin was created before the program?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - wolrah 5y ago
        The theoretical dividing line (I don't think this has ever gone to court) is whether the plugin interface is specific to the GPL application. The prevailing view is that if a GPL application is just implementing a pre-existing plugin API (for example VST or NPAPI) then obviously plugins built for that API can't be held to the licensing of one particular host application. On the other hand, if said API is specific to the GPL application then the GPL applies (for example Linux kernel device driver interfaces). I'm not sure if it's ever even happened, but it's interesting to contemplate the possibility of a proprietary application implementing compatibility with an existing GPL app's plugin API.

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...
  - Drakim 5y ago
    How exactly does that work, what if the plugin was created before the program?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - wolrah 5y ago
      The theoretical dividing line (I don't think this has ever gone to court) is whether the plugin interface is specific to the GPL application. The prevailing view is that if a GPL application is just implementing a pre-existing plugin API (for example VST or NPAPI) then obviously plugins built for that API can't be held to the licensing of one particular host application. On the other hand, if said API is specific to the GPL application then the GPL applies (for example Linux kernel device driver interfaces). I'm not sure if it's ever even happened, but it's interesting to contemplate the possibility of a proprietary application implementing compatibility with an existing GPL app's plugin API.