Lovense OBS Toolkit (source code) is currently shipping code based on obs-multi-rtmp version 0.2.8.0, released in 2021. that’s 420 commits behind the modern day version, which is 0.7.3.2.

@sodiboo how would you even use it?

also the way these buttons work is incredibly weird. who the fuck coded this.

@sodiboo ok so what are you planning?

@sodiboo SIX SEVEN

what the fuck they’re building against the legacy OBS build system that was removed two releases ago. this literally doesn’t build against OBS Studio 32. but they specifically have released a version compatible with OBS Studio 32. are these sources outdated?? is this a license violation??

is this a license violation??

i’m pretty sure it’s not technically a license violation because like, the GPL predates widespread use of the internet, so source code must only be available “upon request”. the easiest way to implement that is “upon HTTP request” but sending as an attachment in response to human<->human communication is fine too i guess.

anyways so i contacted them and i’m not sure the rep fully understands the implications of GPL. i explained in no uncertain terms that “you are required to publish the latest source code to version 2.3.7 of the Lovense OBS toolset” and then they just responded along the lines of “Yeah. We’re not providing the source code currently. We recommend using the pre-compiled Toolset 2.4.7 instead”. i then reiterate that this is exactly why they must provide the source code. i also explained why the binaries won’t work for me at all (which is irrelevant as this is a legal matter). and they just. sent a copy+paste of their previous response? so i clarified again “you have a legal obligation to provide the source code“ and now they have “assigned a dedicated specialist to handle your case personally” who will “contact [me] very soon”. i hope the specialist knows what the GPL is.

@sodiboo jquery

@sodiboo nvm my bad

@luna how do you mean?

@sodiboo Like how would you integrate lovense with obs

oh and this in the root post:

is currently shipping code

is based on the outdated source download from april of this year. given that it is from 2025 and then they were shipping code from 2021, it would not surprise me if they are still doing that. but as it turns out i did not actually inspect the latest release. i merely assumed i was looking at the latest release because oh how foolish and naive to think they would be complying with GPL in the simplest way possible. nuh-uh

@luna @sodiboo i guess you could display current settings on stream

(it’s also not literally that ancient version of that plugin. just based on it. i guess lovense forked it 4 years ago and are missing a bunch of patches)

Sigh. Their “specialist” told me “Hi. We are unable to provide the information you required. If needed, please download the latest toolset (2.4.7).”

What the fuck??

Anyways I reiterated the gist of the GPL and how not providing the source code is literally illegal and that they are committing Copyright Infringement.

the most infuriating part is how slow they are at responding. they seem to be sending no more than one message per working day. this gives the illusion that they’re thinking at all. and then the response I get is like… just a copy+paste of the previous response??

it’s been more than a week. they have sent exactly one (1) message that feels like it had any thought put into it. and that one felt like a genuine misunderstanding! and then they’re just ignoring me?? what the fuck.

if an engineer saw this, it could’ve been resolved in 30 minutes.

I’ve been responding to every message of theirs within the hour and then they just ignore me for at least 24 hours. only to tell me the next day to basically get lost WHICH IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE THEY’RE VIOLATING THE GPL BY DOING THAT

holy shit fuck this company

how do I actually enforce the GPL though. because like I cannot easily afford a lawsuit. who can I report this to that can help me. does OBS have some legal entity enforcing its license? in theory Lovense is violating libobs license here.

@sodiboo talk to the Software Freedom Conservancy, i am pretty sure they work to try to get people to comply with copyleft

@sodiboo clearly they are just edging you… soon you will get the fruits of your labour, a climax in the form of a tarball.

WAIT YO. they sent me an email that DOESN’T brush off my request finally. and this is the SECOND communication of the day. huge news. will keep u updated.

@sodiboo in theory, that's the fsf's job

i say that in theory because they don't actually give a shit anymore

@sodiboo AFAIK the authors have to take action, the FSF(E) might be willing to help

I’d like to note that this previous reply is perhaps overly optimistic? by “doesn’t brush off my request” I meant “feels like they actually read the bolded phrases in my request”. I haven’t heard anything more yet (albeit it’s been like 24 hours only) but the thing that got me excited is them asking how I plan to use the source code. to be clear that’s not a thing they have any business knowing, but at least it feels like it’s not outright denying my source code request. previous responses were all like “we don’t offer the source code. download binary releases”. though I didn’t get source code yet, at least the latest communication was not the same bullshit response. idk. maybe I got too excited. but I also don’t know what the next response will be.

@tastytea There’s no way the authors must be involved. What if the author died? They’re still taking away my freedoms even though I didn’t author the GPL-licensed code they are shipping.

@sodiboo strongly recommend reaching out to fsfe or sfc depending upon jurisdiction they actively litigate these things and very much living organizations and should be able to eliminate uncertainty regarding next steps

@sodiboo fuck everything that uses click handlers on non-focusable elements
it makes keyboard navigation impossible

@sodiboo @tastytea It depends on if the GPL is interpreted as a license or a contract. It was originally written as a license and the FSF has traditionally considered it to be a license and not a contract (which means only the copyright holder can enforce it), but in SFC v Vizio the SFC successfully argued that it was a contract (and therefore they did have standing to sue as a non-copyright holder)

… so, you should contact the SFC and/or FSF and/or FSFE about this, because they can sue, even if they’re not the copyright holder.