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.
    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

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.