DuetDisplay and Unattributed Open-Source

https://github.com/deanm/deanm.github.com/blob/master/_posts/2014-12-18-DuetDisplay.markdown

by cyphunk • 12 years ago

139 50 12 years ago

steipete• 12 years ago

It's always possible that they have custom contracts with the creators of these open source projects; CocoaSplit could have offered them a custom license without x264 so that part can be dial-licensed.

zitterbewegung• 12 years ago

The only real way to fix this situation is to threaten some type of legal action to enforce your copyright or your licence is really meaningless.

christoph• 12 years ago

I paid for it and have had very little luck in getting it to work properly. I've mailed their support and heard nothing back. I would personally advise people away from giving them money, especially now I know of their lack of crediting open source projects.

Vaskerville• 12 years ago

It works well for me - 30fps is good enough for my needs. Let's hope they clear up their OS credit issue promptly.

shawndumas2• 12 years ago

it is working flawlessly for me. i am on a mbp watching vimcast core class on a sidecar mounted iPad air and it's chugging away without any stuttering.

RBerenguel• 12 years ago

It's working fine for me on iPad Air, the iPad 1 version is buggy (dev told me to wait a few days for a fix on Facebook)

mstolpm• 12 years ago

On MacRumors [1], the developer responded in a thread and mentioned that its just him, no big team. So, perhaps he's just overwhelmed with customer queries?

That said, Duet works well on my 13" Early 2011 MBP and a iPad Mini Retina, normal resolution. Retina resolution bumps up the cpu utilization. Duet does not work so well with the same machine connected to an iPad 3, but still usable. Duet does NOT work with 10.10.2 BETA according to the MacRumors thread. Hoping for updates.

[1] http://www.macrumors.com/2014/12/18/duet-display-ipad-tether...

X-Istence• 12 years ago

It works flawlessly for me :-)

reefab• 12 years ago

Same here.

It caused one graphical hang on my Mac and then it opened too many file descriptors, reaching the system limitations and I had to uninstall it and reboot.

codezero3• 12 years ago

Since the MacOS app is free, does the creator need to do anything but give attribution? Seems like the place to focus on for license issues is the iOS app which costs $10.

rcthompson2• 12 years ago

Supposedly, the GPL3 is incompatible with the restrictions in Apple's App Store.

codezero3• 12 years ago

The Mac OS version isn't in the app store, but this does make it seem likely their iOS app is using one of the libraries.

vertex-four5• 12 years ago

As it contains GPLed code, the MacOS app's source code must be distributed or offered for distribution under the GPL to anybody who has a copy of the binary.

sheetjs2• 12 years ago

Is that true? My understanding is that so long as you clearly segregate GPL and non-GPL code by using wrapper classes and linking (rather than copypasta), the core application can remain non-GPL.

goldmar• 12 years ago

CocoaSplit is GPL. Hence, the developer has to release the source code or risk getting sued. I'm looking forward to the OpenSource version of Duet :-)

jsprogrammer3• 12 years ago

Doesn't the developer only need to release the source to someone who has purchased (obtained) and used the application, if they ask?

colinbartlett• 12 years ago

Can someone educate me a little more on these license issues?

What actual benefit is derived by an open source project when they are credited somewhere deep in an about page? Is tangible value provided there?

I feel that if I had produced an open source library, I'd be less interested in having my name anywhere near a project that I didn't actually produce. But I have little practical experience with such things.

rcthompson2• 12 years ago

Is it so hard to understand wanting to be credited when someone uses your work?

shawndumas2• 12 years ago

I think the grandparent was saying that, 'as an OSS author I am not sure I would want every project that used my software to announce it; people will think it an endorsement of some kind'.

codezero3• 12 years ago

If licenses were just about getting credit for your work, they'd be a lot less complicated :)

pthreads• 12 years ago

That is just you. Many who create open-source software and/or hardware do want to see attribution. While it is the right thing to do it is also important to adhere to the license under which it is distributed.

desdiv• 12 years ago

I feel that if I had produced an open source library, I'd be less interested in having my name anywhere near a project that I didn't actually produce.

BSD's non-endorsement clause comes close to what you want:

    Neither the name of the <organization> nor the names of its 
    contributors may be used to endorse or promote products 
    derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

mronge2• 12 years ago

We've been developing app that also streams video content from Mac to iPad, and this recent Apple reversal on USB has been very frustrating for us.

About a year ago we submitted an app to the App Store that uses the same USB tech (PeerTalk), we wanted to see if Apple would allow it (we didn't want to build a business around something that could change on a whim). If it was allowed that would have changed the entire direction of our development. An Apple rep called us and informed as that USB access is not allowed.

With this in mind we went ahead with using WiFi, which has been HARD and time consuming. Now Apple all of a sudden allows USB access, what?!

How does Apple expect people to build serious apps when the ground is shifting beneath our feet?

Anyway.. I should write a post with more details.

hugs2• 12 years ago

It sucks, but this is always the risk when developing on someone else's proprietary platform.

spacefight• 12 years ago

Walled garden issues, to state it more bluntly. You live by the sword, you...

mronge2• 12 years ago

I went ahead and put together a post. Check it out. "Apple, is USB allowed now?"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8778010

jawngee• 12 years ago

Not taking sides one way or the other but:

- CocoaSplit's licensing isn't anywhere BUT in the credits.rtf which is buried. It's not in any of the source headers, not in the README.md. If you aren't using the app part of CocoaSplit, you would never know it was there unless you grep'd. And who amongst us has grepped for a license?

- PeerTalk and GPUImage are permissive licenses that only require attribution

I don't see what the big deal is, to be honest.

the_imp• 12 years ago

What sort of argument is that? If the Duet Display author wasn't able to find the GPL license for CocoaSplit, how could he assume that the code was available for any use? Furthermore, the ISC and BSD licenses of PeerTalk and GPUImage are rather permissive, yes, but they do require attribution that is not given by Duet Display.

The big deal here is that licenses matter, especially when you're profiting from others' work.

mikeash• 12 years ago

If there's no license then you can't incorporate the code at all. "It's hard to find the license" is not an argument. If you can't find it then you have to assume you can't use it.

geofft3• 12 years ago

And who amongst us has grepped for a license?

Try packaging some software for Debian and you'll do a lot of grepping because Debian cares deeply about complying with the law. I've also poked Red Hat's lawyers to get some kernel code from GPLv2 to GPLv2+ because I wanted to reuse it in GPLv3 software, etc. If you're following the law, you're grepping for licenses. If you or your employer don't care about complying with the law, you're welcome to take that risk.

Here's the results of all the grepping I did for a Debian package recently, and this was relatively straightforward as software goes. Note the lines that start "Comment": https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/p/prelink/copyrigh...

If you don't have the explicit right to reuse a piece of code, you can't assume you do. If you don't like this, get your lawmakers to remove your country from the Berne Convention. Or you can risk breaking the law and hope nobody notices; up to you.

It might be telling that there's an entire _company_ dedicated to grepping for licenses as a service, because people don't do so and then they get in trouble. https://www.blackducksoftware.com/

logn• 12 years ago

beltex• 12 years ago

https://github.com/rsms/peertalk/commit/5973b1722d3330340c08...

PeerTalk's README was just updated with a note about DuetDisplay.

cyphunk• 12 years ago

Dean (the author of the article) mentioned that several other apps have attempted to use peertalk and other OSS code this app uses but had their app rejected by Apple (e.g. see mronge's comment). So perhaps the lack of attribution was made with the assumption that use of these OSS packages was part of the reason for rejection. If this is not the excuse then I can't imagine any reason for it. Attribution in this form is a simple footnote somewhere and giving credit to others never hurts your own brand. In fact I'd argue it contributes to it.

jeremyjh• 12 years ago

The CocoaSplit repository does not contain a LICENSE file. Basically this would mean it is unlicensed. However it does mention a license in its credits.rtf page, buried in the project:

" The inclusion of x264 requires this software is licensed in a GPL compatible way. I'm fairly apathetic about software licensing, so to make everyone's life easy (but mostly mine) CocoaSplit is licensed under GPLv2. "

Considering the apathy of CocoaSplit if there is going to be an aggrieved party here it will be authors of x264.

kiding• 12 years ago

Duet Display twitter account responded that "[The omission of the attribution was] an oversight of rushing to get in the App Store before lockout" and "All projects we used were cleared for use."

https://twitter.com/duetdisplay/status/546676103645896704 https://twitter.com/duetdisplay/status/546709659457826816

DuetDisplay and Unattributed Open-Source

Related Stories