6 ms·

Unfortunately it seems like nowadays with open source being very widespread that many companies or people simply ignore/forget that these libraries that they in

Unfortunately it seems like nowadays with open source being very widespread that many companies or people simply ignore/forget that these libraries that they include in their software aren't just "public domain" because the code is public, but they have a license that should be respected and actually has legal value, so what often ends up happening is that they take advantage of open source software or libraries in their proprietary software without even giving a crap about their authors and their community

ilaksh 4y ago
But the first error is one that you seem to have made also: that there are different types of open source licenses. GPL or other copyleft licenses generally require you to disclose the code (or make a licensing deal in some cases). Things like the MIT license are much less restrictive.
- ronsor 4y ago
  In this particular case, Voice.ai is also violating permissively licensed libraries. For example, libFLAC is included in VoiceAILib.dll: reference libFLAC 1.2.1 20070917 The license text: https://github.com/xiph/flac/blob/master/COPYING.Xiph https://github.com/xiph/flac/blob/master/COPYING.Xiph The license requires Voice.ai to include the license text somewhere in the distribution or documentation, yet they do not.
  - ilaksh 4y ago
    Okay but that's still quite different from the copyleft licenses and violations which was my point.
    - dsr_ 4y ago
      Actually, it isn't. It's the same underlying principle. All software must be paid for, with the exception of countries which have an actual public domain. Some software is paid for with money, some with acknowledgments, and some with source code sharing. Sometimes the developer demands postcards, and sometimes they demand that you not use it for evil purposes. All of these are forms of payment. If you don't pay for it, you don't have certain rights to it.
      - ilaksh 4y ago
        [flagged]
        jraph 4y ago
        > Lol. HN is so ridiculous sometimes. I hope you won't hold this against me, but I would suggest some humility here. Let's discuss and disagree with respect, shall we?
        INGSOCIALITE 4y ago
        It's not harder to 'give away' the source code. It's part of the license(s) of the code you are linking to create your binary. It's not hard at all, actually. On the contrary, it's very easy.
        codeguro 4y ago
        > but much harder to give away the source code On the contrary, it’s actually quite easy. They can simply upload the repository on github’s or simply tar snapshots of the source for their releases and host it themselves. No, the issue is not that it’s hard. It’s that they don’t want to comply with copyright law. That’s an issue of criminality, not difficulty.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        smoldesu 4y ago
        Critical distinction to whom? The users? The developers? The judge and jury? If you get pulled over for speeding, you can't argue away the ticket by saying "yes officer, but speeding is easy to fix relative to hitting someone". If you continue to violate the law despite being notified of your exact violation, then you're probably due in for some punishment. I don't see how that's so hard to understand.
        jeroenhd 4y ago
        > comply with attribution somewhere Somewhere where the user can find it. That may require UI work. > much harder to give away the source code tar cf gpl-mandated-source.tar.gz ~/Projects/voice.ai; drag file into dropbox and email link. That's the nice thing about this particular violation, you don't need to go over the source code at all! You just need to send over the source files that you shipped!
- adrr 4y ago
  Only if you distribute the code. You can go take some copyleft code, modify to you liking but only run on you backend servers and that is perfectly fine. Copyright license only triggers on distribution.
  - macmac 4y ago
    This is not correct. The AGPL which is also a copyleft license "triggers" without distribution. This is possible because you as the copyright holder can decide the terms of the license you offer, and these terms do not need to be related to your exclusive rights as a copyright holder.
    - adrr 4y ago
      How does that work? How does a copyright license apply if there is no distribution? What legal mechanism allows that? You can include a TOS in the code, but that isn’t enforceable because there is no agreement forcing function like “click to agree” nor am i required to even read it. And TOS doesn’t have any laws protecting it like copyright. Edit: Instead of voting me down point out the relevant US law that allows copyright law that applies after the distribution like a TOS to person who didn’t distribute the code.
      - jraph 4y ago
        You can't use copyrighted material without explicit permission from its authors / right holders, fair use aside. Programs are copyrighted material (since 1974 in the US IIRC). The AGPL license is what will give you the permission to use AGPL'd software, but under conditions you need to respect, to the extent permitted by law (in both ways: some uses are illegal, and some restrictions imposed by the licenses could be unenforceable).
        adrr 4y ago
        > Suppose you develop and release a free program under the ordinary GNU GPL. If developer D modifies the program and releases it, the GPL requires him to distribute his version under the GPL too. Thus, if you get a copy of his version, you are free to incorporate some or all of his changes into your own version. > But suppose the program is mainly useful on servers. When D modifies the program, he might very likely run it on his own server and never release copies. Then you would never get a copy of the source code of his version, so you would never have the chance to include his changes in your version. You may not like that outcome. > Using the GNU Affero GPL avoids that outcome. If D runs his version on a server that everyone can use, you too can use it. Assuming he has followed the license requirement to let the server's users download the source code of his version, you can do so, and then you can incorporate his changes into your version. (If he hasn't followed it, you have your lawyer complain to him.) Copyright law only covers distributed software. It is not a terms of service and cover usage. GNU site has a bunch of articles on what it covers and what it doesn't. AGPL doesn't cover internal software if you don't expose it outside of the company. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html
- jraph 4y ago
  > the first error is one that you seem to have made also They don't seem to have made such an error though. Their comment was very general, and permissive licenses still have conditions like giving attribution.
- StuckDuck 4y ago
  Yeah, I guess probably "free software" was a more appropriate term
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  yes but when you do npm install myfavlibrary it is all the same :)

ilaksh 4y ago

But the first error is one that you seem to have made also: that there are different types of open source licenses. GPL or other copyleft licenses generally require you to disclose the code (or make a licensing deal in some cases). Things like the MIT license are much less restrictive.

ronsor 4y ago
In this particular case, Voice.ai is also violating permissively licensed libraries. For example, libFLAC is included in VoiceAILib.dll: reference libFLAC 1.2.1 20070917 The license text: https://github.com/xiph/flac/blob/master/COPYING.Xiph https://github.com/xiph/flac/blob/master/COPYING.Xiph The license requires Voice.ai to include the license text somewhere in the distribution or documentation, yet they do not.
- ilaksh 4y ago
  Okay but that's still quite different from the copyleft licenses and violations which was my point.
  - dsr_ 4y ago
    Actually, it isn't. It's the same underlying principle. All software must be paid for, with the exception of countries which have an actual public domain. Some software is paid for with money, some with acknowledgments, and some with source code sharing. Sometimes the developer demands postcards, and sometimes they demand that you not use it for evil purposes. All of these are forms of payment. If you don't pay for it, you don't have certain rights to it.
    - ilaksh 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - jraph 4y ago
        > Lol. HN is so ridiculous sometimes. I hope you won't hold this against me, but I would suggest some humility here. Let's discuss and disagree with respect, shall we?
      - INGSOCIALITE 4y ago
        It's not harder to 'give away' the source code. It's part of the license(s) of the code you are linking to create your binary. It's not hard at all, actually. On the contrary, it's very easy.
      - codeguro 4y ago
        > but much harder to give away the source code On the contrary, it’s actually quite easy. They can simply upload the repository on github’s or simply tar snapshots of the source for their releases and host it themselves. No, the issue is not that it’s hard. It’s that they don’t want to comply with copyright law. That’s an issue of criminality, not difficulty.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - smoldesu 4y ago
        Critical distinction to whom? The users? The developers? The judge and jury? If you get pulled over for speeding, you can't argue away the ticket by saying "yes officer, but speeding is easy to fix relative to hitting someone". If you continue to violate the law despite being notified of your exact violation, then you're probably due in for some punishment. I don't see how that's so hard to understand.
      - jeroenhd 4y ago
        > comply with attribution somewhere Somewhere where the user can find it. That may require UI work. > much harder to give away the source code tar cf gpl-mandated-source.tar.gz ~/Projects/voice.ai; drag file into dropbox and email link. That's the nice thing about this particular violation, you don't need to go over the source code at all! You just need to send over the source files that you shipped!
adrr 4y ago
Only if you distribute the code. You can go take some copyleft code, modify to you liking but only run on you backend servers and that is perfectly fine. Copyright license only triggers on distribution.
- macmac 4y ago
  This is not correct. The AGPL which is also a copyleft license "triggers" without distribution. This is possible because you as the copyright holder can decide the terms of the license you offer, and these terms do not need to be related to your exclusive rights as a copyright holder.
  - adrr 4y ago
    How does that work? How does a copyright license apply if there is no distribution? What legal mechanism allows that? You can include a TOS in the code, but that isn’t enforceable because there is no agreement forcing function like “click to agree” nor am i required to even read it. And TOS doesn’t have any laws protecting it like copyright. Edit: Instead of voting me down point out the relevant US law that allows copyright law that applies after the distribution like a TOS to person who didn’t distribute the code.
    - jraph 4y ago
      You can't use copyrighted material without explicit permission from its authors / right holders, fair use aside. Programs are copyrighted material (since 1974 in the US IIRC). The AGPL license is what will give you the permission to use AGPL'd software, but under conditions you need to respect, to the extent permitted by law (in both ways: some uses are illegal, and some restrictions imposed by the licenses could be unenforceable).
      - adrr 4y ago
        > Suppose you develop and release a free program under the ordinary GNU GPL. If developer D modifies the program and releases it, the GPL requires him to distribute his version under the GPL too. Thus, if you get a copy of his version, you are free to incorporate some or all of his changes into your own version. > But suppose the program is mainly useful on servers. When D modifies the program, he might very likely run it on his own server and never release copies. Then you would never get a copy of the source code of his version, so you would never have the chance to include his changes in your version. You may not like that outcome. > Using the GNU Affero GPL avoids that outcome. If D runs his version on a server that everyone can use, you too can use it. Assuming he has followed the license requirement to let the server's users download the source code of his version, you can do so, and then you can incorporate his changes into your version. (If he hasn't followed it, you have your lawyer complain to him.) Copyright law only covers distributed software. It is not a terms of service and cover usage. GNU site has a bunch of articles on what it covers and what it doesn't. AGPL doesn't cover internal software if you don't expose it outside of the company. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html
jraph 4y ago
> the first error is one that you seem to have made also They don't seem to have made such an error though. Their comment was very general, and permissive licenses still have conditions like giving attribution.
StuckDuck 4y ago
Yeah, I guess probably "free software" was a more appropriate term
phpisthebest 4y ago
yes but when you do npm install myfavlibrary it is all the same :)