Thread

OpenDLSS: A Vulkan Reimplementation of Nvidia's DLSS 5 Neural Rendering Network

277 points · 126 comments · sagacity

dtf · 1790846196 · focus · HN ↗
Seems quite similar to this repository?
<a href="https://github.com/aloshdenny/open-dlss" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/aloshdenny/open-dlss
1. godbox · 1790846986 · focus · HN ↗
  Same exact commits at the same time as well, but different repository names and authors. What the hell?
  1. _ache_ · 1790847333 · focus · HN ↗
    From the LICENSE
    Copyright (c) 2026 maan
    So... Either alooshdenny stole the commits, or it's an alias for maan.
    esperent · 1790848514 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not stolen. It's MIT licensed and the attribution is still there.
    mariusor · 1790852955 · focus · HN ↗
    Rewriting the commit author is very much "stolen".
    someonebaggy · 1790854677 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    austinthetaco · 1790855547 · focus · HN ↗
    this is completely and totally incorrect. MIT lets you redistribute, copy, and modify. It does not let you take authorship over the original work, even if just by way of changing git history.
    someonebaggy · 1790856236 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think there's any legal concept of "taking authorship". What even is that?
    austinthetaco · 1790856468 · focus · HN ↗
    taking, as in claiming. its a significant part of copyright law.
    ndriscoll · 1790860102 · focus · HN ↗
    This is jurisdiction specific. The US doesn't have anything like this as long as you're not claiming to own the copyright. As far as I know, this is also why in some European countries you can't simply make a work public domain, as you can't give up attribution rights. In the US, you just don't have any attribution rights (though you could demand attribution as part of a copyright license).
    And in any case, the copyright notice is still intact. They did attribute the author.
    bux93 · 1790860741 · focus · HN ↗
    In the US, claiming authorship isn't as protected or significant as internationally; moral rights are only protected for "works of visual art". <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
    Which is not to say that uploading something to github is necessarily asserting ones authorship (if you read the front matter of a book, you might see a phrasing such as "[Name] asserts the moral right to be identified at the author of this work."; this is intended for jurisdictions that comply with the Berne convention more fully than the US does.) It is also not an instrument of conveyance (which needs to be signed by the owner of the rights) or the same as registering a copyright. A copyright notice is no longer required since the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 (effective as of 1989), but would involve the copyright symbol and not a git upload.
    blochist · 1790859378 · focus · HN ↗
    This is untrue and if you thought about what you're claiming for a second this should be obvious. The MIT license let's someone do any of the things outlined there subject only to the need to retain the copyright notice and the license itself. I can grab MIT-licensed files and commit them to my repo (e.g., vendoring a dependency). I can also grab the files from an MIT-licensed commit and then the files from the next commit and recreate the history of that repo with myself as the author provided I've met those two conditions. I'm not saying this isn't _scummy_ behavior; it is! But its within the bounds of what the MIT license allows.
    jpc0 · 1790860845 · focus · HN ↗
    MIT does not wave the right to attribution so no even under MIT it is illegal to reattribue work.
    Authorship and the underlying code are seperate rights under law.
    esperent · 1790872387 · focus · HN ↗
    > MIT does not wave the right to attribution
    Waive. And no, it doesn't but it doesn't require attribution either. So you're falling back on copyright law which is unlikely to protect you here - there's a reason people include licenses, after all.
    jpc0 · 1791068090 · focus · HN ↗
    People include licenses because if there isn't any license copyright law applies and you may not create any copy of said code. You as a third party have no use of the code without a license
    strangecasts · 1790855845 · focus · HN ↗
    Software licenses aren't enforced by magic but they are social contracts: even if nobody has the resources to go after you for doing it, it is pretty clearly against the permissive licenses' spirit to misrepresent yourself as the author
    someonebaggy · 1790856254 · focus · HN ↗
    It's also pretty clear that the real author gave you permission to misrepresent yourself as the author, as long as you retain the copyright notice. If he didn't want you to do that, he shouldn't have given you permission.
    illumanaughty · 1790857458 · focus · HN ↗
    Wow you sound like a nice person
    strangecasts · 1790857496 · focus · HN ↗
    The "if they wanted you to follow the spirit, the letter should have been different" argument grants membership in the society of people known throughout history as "the reasons we can't have nice things"
    someonebaggy · 1790883564 · focus · HN ↗
    And everyone who follows this argument has become filthy rich.
    strangecasts · 1790894204 · focus · HN ↗
    Incorrect, there are plenty of people who ignore or fail to recognize the purpose of a rule as a completely free service, as any forums mod or OSS project maintainer can attest to
    lukan · 1790887501 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://xkcd.com/1499/" rel="nofollow">https://xkcd.com/1499/
    austinthetaco · 1790859047 · focus · HN ↗
    they dont though. nothing about MIT license is granting anyone the ability to misrepresent as the author. thats why its a license and not copyright transfer.
    someonebaggy · 1790941168 · focus · HN ↗
    You have to keep the copyright notice and the license. Everything else can be changed as you see fit.
    austinthetaco · 1790956228 · focus · HN ↗
    thats just not true. Commits themselves are held up as copyrighted and a claim for creation. just as you cant legally put up a poster claiming you painted a painting you just got a license for, you can't claim the commits.
    flohofwoe · 1790856666 · focus · HN ↗
    MIT License requires 'attribution', e.g. at the very least the original copyright notice and license text (which tbf is the case in aloshdenny's copy because he left the LICENSE.md intact (or just forgot to "clean up").

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.