[HN Gopher] On commercial forks FOSS projects
___________________________________________________________________
On commercial forks FOSS projects
Author : als0
Score : 71 points
Date : 2021-12-18 11:39 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (drewdevault.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (drewdevault.com)
| cycomanic wrote:
| 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.
| 60654 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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!
| haunter wrote:
| 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
|
| Bringing up together with what TikTok did is kinda dishonest
| egil wrote:
| It's also quite prominently displayed on
| https://streamlabs.com/
| akerl_ wrote:
| 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.
| Xylakant wrote:
| 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
| tyingq wrote:
| >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.htm...
| Xylakant wrote:
| 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.
| tyingq wrote:
| >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."
|
| I don't think it's that simple either. You mentioned the
| Virtual box kernel modules. There's plenty of discussion,
| some from Linus that some kernel modules are "derived
| works of Linux" and some are not. The binary Nvidea
| kernel drivers had to skip using a zero-copy DMA feature
| because of this, even if they shipped standalone.
|
| I suspect the same situation exists here. OBS, for
| example, has some very specific structs, header files,
| api functions, and other ways of interacting with
| plugins. A plugin made to work with OBS could very well
| be a derivative work, regardless of whether it ships with
| OBS or not. Distribution of the derivative work alone
| triggers the GPL in that case.
| Xylakant wrote:
| I'm not saying it could not be. I'm saying that a cursory
| search of the internet provides no substantial allegation
| that this is the case - and the article just asserts so,
| without any further citations or discussion.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| The GPL only applies when you're redistributing a program
| or its code. A plugin that is downloaded later, and not
| necessary for the basic function of the program itself,
| while at that point could technically constitute a
| combined work, typically just sits on your computer
| forever at that point. Only if you were to then re-
| redistribute both that program AND the downloaded plugin,
| then there is a possibility of a GPL violation if the
| license of the plugin is incompatible.
| outsomnia wrote:
| If the plugin itself has no function or meaning
| standalone, without being linked to the GPL'd work, it's
| considered by the GPL to be a "derived work". And at
| least on GPL v2 that OBS uses, it operates at the point
| of "distribut[ing] or publish[ing]" that.
|
| v2 sect 2b
|
| You must cause any work that you distribute or publish,
| that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the
| Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at
| no charge to all third parties under the terms of this
| License.
|
| https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
| Drakim wrote:
| How exactly does that work, what if the plugin was
| created before the program?
| [deleted]
| wolrah wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| haunter wrote:
| 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://drewdevau.
| ..
| akerl_ wrote:
| Ah, gotcha. Agreed with your initial comment, and glad to
| see the article appears to have been amended to match.
| yuvalr1 wrote:
| More discussions in this thread:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29592103
| akagusu wrote:
| TikTok and other companies only represent the ethos of the modern
| society: take whatever you want, give nothing in return.
| indymike wrote:
| > TikTok and other companies only represent the ethos of the
| modern society
|
| I'm not sure this is a modern phenomena.
| jimmyvalmer wrote:
| tldr; if you fork gpl code, you have to gpl your fork.
|
| People love to hear themselves talk, myself included.
| pacifika wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| stavros wrote:
| You do if the license is AGPL 3.
| rhplus wrote:
| _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.
| CorrectHorseBat wrote:
| The website would be GPL, but since you're not giving anyone
| binaries you also don't have to give anyone the source.
| jorams wrote:
| 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.
| draw_down wrote:
| Well, you have to wonder what good these licenses are if there is
| no way enforce them.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-18 23:02 UTC)