3 ms·

https://streamelements.com/ https://streamelements.com/ appears to be a different thing than StreamLabs, and StreamElements is what the article references as a

by 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.
      - bombcar 5y ago
        It’s down to the definition of “derivative work” and the FSF may not have it legally correct (they may be overstating what can be considered derivative from a legal viewpoint) - as it has never reached litigation we don’t have a final solid answer. And even if it did we’d only have a precedent that may be hard to apply.
  - Xylakant 5y ago
    But it's clearly not as simple. The GPL triggers on distribution of the combined work - the user is free to link GPL'ed and other code with incompatible licenses as long as they do not redistribute. For example, the kernel modules for VirtualBox are distributed in source form under a commercial license and need to be compiled on the users box against the kernel header. Distributing the modules in binary form would likely be a violation, as would be distributing OBS with the closed source plugins - but that's not what happens here. So the GPL only triggers when a work incorporating GPL code is distributed, so the question here boils down to "does the plugin itself contain GPL code" and not to "can it be loaded into a GPL'ed program on the users computer." The GPL does not and cannot force a license on some piece of software that only implements an API - it can only affect software that directly incorporates code. Think about it this way: If the mere ability to be loaded as a pieces of software into a GPL'ed program is sufficient to force the piece of software under GPL, then I could just write a small GPL program for any piece of closed source software and force it under GPL. That clearly doesn't work.

by akerl_ 5y ago

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.
    - bombcar 5y ago
      It’s down to the definition of “derivative work” and the FSF may not have it legally correct (they may be overstating what can be considered derivative from a legal viewpoint) - as it has never reached litigation we don’t have a final solid answer. And even if it did we’d only have a precedent that may be hard to apply.
- Xylakant 5y ago
  But it's clearly not as simple. The GPL triggers on distribution of the combined work - the user is free to link GPL'ed and other code with incompatible licenses as long as they do not redistribute. For example, the kernel modules for VirtualBox are distributed in source form under a commercial license and need to be compiled on the users box against the kernel header. Distributing the modules in binary form would likely be a violation, as would be distributing OBS with the closed source plugins - but that's not what happens here. So the GPL only triggers when a work incorporating GPL code is distributed, so the question here boils down to "does the plugin itself contain GPL code" and not to "can it be loaded into a GPL'ed program on the users computer." The GPL does not and cannot force a license on some piece of software that only implements an API - it can only affect software that directly incorporates code. Think about it this way: If the mere ability to be loaded as a pieces of software into a GPL'ed program is sufficient to force the piece of software under GPL, then I could just write a small GPL program for any piece of closed source software and force it under GPL. That clearly doesn't work.