People are misunderstanding this and claiming it's not problematic. Ben Torrell (an OBS developer) notes later in the thread that there is indeed GPL code compiled into TikTok's executables; since source is not available and they have not got another license, it is unlicensed and hence illegal.
In almost all cases, TikTok's offering would be considered a derived work because you cannot swap out the OBS part for another and still have it work. So they are likely in full violation unless they agree to open source all their code.<p>Seems like a pretty open and shut case to be honest - that is, if they intend to pursue legal action and the powers that be rule appropriately.
The actual Studio app is in beta and is only available to a select group of testers. If you're on the list, you can grab the installer from <a href="https://tiktok.com/Studio/Download" rel="nofollow">https://tiktok.com/Studio/Download</a>.<p>If you're not on the list, like me, you can go to a cached version of that page, find the JS code that retrieves the download links (<a href="https://lf16-tiktok-web.ttwstatic.com/obj/tiktok-web-us/tiktok/webapp/main/mobile/studio-download.ffbed50df291d3bca0f0.js" rel="nofollow">https://lf16-tiktok-web.ttwstatic.com/obj/tiktok-web-us/tikt...</a>), hit the API that serves up the download links (<a href="https://tron-sg.bytelemon.com/api/sdk/check_update?branch=master&pid=6974351561648511246&uid=&buildId=" rel="nofollow">https://tron-sg.bytelemon.com/api/sdk/check_update?branch=ma...</a>) and grab the download links to share with everyone (the files are identical, these are mirrors):<p><a href="https://lf16-live-studio.tiktokcdn.com/obj/tiktok-live-studio-us/6974351561648511246/releases/7383765/0.1.0-beta.10/win32-ia32/tiktok_live_studio-v0.1.0-beta.10-win32-ia32.exe" rel="nofollow">https://lf16-live-studio.tiktokcdn.com/obj/tiktok-live-studi...</a><p><a href="https://lf1-ttcdn-tos.pstatp.com/obj/tiktok-live-studio/6974351561648511246/releases/7383765/0.1.0-beta.10/win32-ia32/tiktok_live_studio-v0.1.0-beta.10-win32-ia32.exe" rel="nofollow">https://lf1-ttcdn-tos.pstatp.com/obj/tiktok-live-studio/6974...</a>
Yup. The best thing we can all do is shine a light on it. I'm a lawyer and one thing that's important to remember in all of this is the interconnectedness of things, and being strategic about how to proceed is important. Shine the light everywhere.<p>As in, one thing to consider is that some proponents of Free Software do not actually want certain types of high-profile public cases on the GPL <i>even when</i> they law appears to be very much on their side, mostly because it could be really bad if a judge gets it wrong and sets something stupid as precedent.
I think it's useful for developers to have a rough mental model of how open source licensing works, as it's not that complicated yet affects what you can legally do, both as a user of open source software as well as as a contributor.<p>Coincidentally I recently did a Twitter thread on it, in case anyone's interested. I know not everyone like the medium, but at least it's also posted on Mastodon, so there's that: <a href="https://fosstodon.org/@VincentTunru/107382356640669971" rel="nofollow">https://fosstodon.org/@VincentTunru/107382356640669971</a>
Not strictly enforcing license terms only deteriorates the standing of the license. A tweet or blog post is fine, but unless someone is willing to take TikTok to court over this the takeaway is clear - violate GPL if you want and nothing will come out of it.
Perhaps Bytedance forgot to make the Github repo public [0]? They have released a lot of internal tools as FOSS.<p>[0] <a href="https://github.com/orgs/bytedance/repositories?q=live&type=all&language=&sort=" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/orgs/bytedance/repositories?q=live&type=a...</a>
The commitment[1] appears to say, in summary, "you can violate the license anytime, and as long as you stop violating soon after we tell you to, there can be no financial penalties".<p>That makes the GPL <i>substantially</i> weaker, since now a company can use GPL code in any place they think nobody will look. They will never be on the hook for court ordered damages going back years for unlicensed use.<p>[1]: <a href="https://github.com/obsproject/obs-studio/blob/master/COMMITMENT" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/obsproject/obs-studio/blob/master/COMMITM...</a>
I worked at a medium size software company in New York and our team lead would always say "Why make what you can take?" when referring to finding open source code and running with it, regardless of licensing or anything.
People expecting OBS to get millions from this are naïve. Almost certainly TikTok will change the software to just use OBS independently to avoid the issue.<p>If OBS wants money they should use a dual license.
Are they technically obligated to provide the source code online, or could they just say: "Well it's available on request, and no one has done so"? The just mail out a USB stick or DVD to anyone who asks?<p>I believe that's with in the limits of the GPLv2.
Could GPL include a clause such that, when abused like this, the code of the offending app would become GPL code as well?<p>Imagine people start "stealing" TikTok code, TikToc sues, and now the defendant has their day in court to defend the GPL, at TikToks expense.
apparently OBS devs don't want to share direct evidence yet and resolve it privately probably due to their GPL Cooperation Commitment. while I'm sure we all appreciate that, it would be nice to see the decompiled binaries and the exact violations, just so we can explicitly point them out and argue.<p>I find it VERY easy to believe that Tiktok are indeed in violation, but right now all we have are statements and a 302 redirect to Microsoft Directx download page.
Is it clear whether it's a "fork" (i.e. the entirety or a significant portion of the code is used in the derivative work), or whether they just found some utility snippet in an open source project and forgot to wash it?<p>Also isn't TikTok Chinese?
I've always wondered if these license are legally enforceable. What if TikTok ignores the criticism and does nothing. Do the developers sue the company and will they get any money?
I'd like to see HN shy away from posting twitter threads as news. There's almost always a hard link to the source material, and twitter threads are filled with emotional, truncated, nuance-lacking, trite clips that more often than not do little to promote healthy discussion of a topic. The goal of quality here really is noble.
It's concerning how many self-labelled software engineers on Twitter are chipping in with comments like "it's open source so it's fair game" or "they just need to add attribution".
TikTok is in China. There is no such thing as illegal forks their. Half their economy is based on stealing IP and mass producing it cheaply.<p>Any laws or legality is just lip service to shut up companies and governments that complain.
So will all those outlets that had "Trump's social network is violating the GPL" stories be jumping on this with equal fervour? Considering they didn't cover the compliance with the GPL that "truth social" (awful name) did, I think we can safely assume they won't.
Open source software license should include a clause saying that it is mandatory for commercial users to pay a certain amount of contribution annually, let's say 0.01% of gross revenue?<p>So if they find it too expensively they can simply turn away and build their own, which is good for whoever get the chance to do some lower level programming, and if they find it OK the open source authors/maintainers can get some good money. It's a win-win. Of course this might request open source authors/maintainers to form a more rigid organization (how to share the profit).
Could someone please help explain to me and (others who might not know) what is the concrete problem caused by this forking that doesn't comply with the license?
The original Tweet (embedded one from HunterAP) says TikTok installs OBS and uses it in the background with a TikTok front-end. It doesn’t say that they’ve illegally forked it.<p>EDIT: See comments from OBS developer below for a more clear explanation of the issues than the linked Tweet
How do we make sure people invoking China-stealing-intellectual-property-yet-again don’t pile on this thread? If this is a case of a company wrongfully using IP we need to very much have a discussion about that topic alone.
The use of the word "illegal" seems problematic if this is a contractual dispute over (GPL) license terms. No one <i>seems</i> to be claiming that TikTok actually committed a criminal act (although, perhaps they did, if this was intentional as it appears, and TikTok is engaging in criminal-levels of distribution. Not a lawyer, so just speculating here.)<p>It probably would have been better if the OP had said "violated the license agreement".<p>Still, many other companies have eventually caved under GPL lawsuits, but apparently none in China; probably because it's virtually impossible as a foreigner to win a tort case against a Chinese company.<p><a href="https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases" rel="nofollow">https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20Enforcement%20Cases</a>
> OBS is free for anyone to use, for any reason. Other developers can use the OBS code in their own projects as long as they obey the guidelines set forth in the GPLv2 license. OBS has no watermarks or other limitations and can be used commercially with no restrictions.<p>So I guess there's nothing wrong with that.