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.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.