22 ms·

Unity's Open-Source Double Standard: The Ban of VLC

1027 points by 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 3y ago

eterevsky 3y ago
It sounds like this article tells only part of the story. Why would Unity ban VLC? I wonder if they have given any official comments about this.
DeathArrow 3y ago
They still can publish their assets outside of the Unity store. Users can download them and install them in Unity. But I agree it's not a nice move from behalf of Unity.
- nacs 3y ago
  And in the linked article, VLC mentions they have now done that -- they have their own site to download the plugins.
chii 3y ago
What's the rational for not allowing LGPL code on the unity store? It makes no sense for the ban imho (tho i m not very familiar with unity store's model so i might just be missing something).
- paulmd 3y ago
  intredasting, they rather explicitly appear to be tilting against viral licensing: > 5.10.4 Provider represents and warrants that its Assets shall not contain (a) any software licensed under the GNU General Public License or GNU Library or Lesser General Public License, or any other license with terms that include a requirement to extend such license to any modification or combined work and provide for the distribution of the combined or modified product’s source code upon demand so that Customer content becomes subject to the terms of such license; or (b) any software that is a modification or derivative of any software licensed under the GNU General Public License or Library or Lesser Public License, or any other license with terms similar thereto so that Customer content become subject to the terms of such license. LGPL doesn't impose combined redistribution requirements, does it? They're just tilting against that whole ecosystem specially. And if you apply the same standard as LGPL, MIT/BSD are basically the same right? Probably CDDL falls in too? that's absolutely a crazy thing but it's pretty straightforward in the licensing agreement. No, no, they got it all wrong: "not, invented here!"
  - adrian_b 3y ago
    LGPL is a regular license, it is not a viral license. GPL is a viral license. The GNU glibc uses LGPL and almost any program run on a Linux system uses glibc, regardless in what programming language it has been written, at least for the system calls. If LGPL had been a viral license too, all programs would have been affected.
    - ghusbands 3y ago
      Doesn't the LGPL give users the right to replace the LGPL part with a modified library of their choice? It seems doubtful that users can modify downloaded Unity apps at their leisure, so that would mean that LGPL cannot be supported on Unity, wouldn't it? Though then it would seem that LGPL libraries on almost any app store are being used against their license terms, so I must be wrong.
      - adrian_b 3y ago
        The obvious way to comply with LGPL is to link dynamically the LGPL libraries, even if everything else is linked statically. I am pretty sure that the Unity executables link dynamically glibc anyway. The alternative is to do the static linking in 2 steps. First link everything else into a big ELF object file, then do the final linking of the LGPL libraries. For compliance with the LGPL, it is enough to provide access to the big binary object file, so that a user may relink the possibly modified LGPL libraries, if desired. A dynamically-linked executable and an object file that needs a final static linking step with additional libraries have almost identical content and they provide equivalent information.
        pzo 3y ago
        Sometimes even dynamic linking might be not enough - on iOS you can build dynamic frameworks that are dynamically linked but they are signed with developer provisioning key when distributed via App Store. AFAIK there is not other way for end user to swap such dynamic framework/library unless developer will provide source code or object files or compiled code (e.g. in other dynamic framework that links dynamically to such LGPL code). Not sure about jailbroken iPhones. Also for more complicated iOS projects (that require iOS capabilities e.g. in-app-purchase, push notifications, app pay, icloud etc.) end user would need to have a paid apple developer account to create and sign build.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  The rational is that you should be able to just install any asset from the store in your game and be good to go. With an LGPL asset now you have to let customers be able to edit that addon and rebuild your game with it which would be a pain, and most developers do not want to give out the unity project files. Having a simple licensing story for assets on the store lets users have trust in whatever they see they can use in their game worry free. Edit: Removed bit about LGPL applying to the original code because of static linkage because it was incorrect and distracting from my point
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - adrian_b 3y ago
    What you say is not correct. Only linking with a GPL library makes GPL applicable to the whole program. This is the difference between LGPL and GPL. LGPL is a normal license that applies only to the library. Since glibc uses LGPL, if your theory had been true than almost all programs run on a Linux system, regardless of their origin, would have been covered by LGPL.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      The LGPL code gets statically linked with the rest of your code which means that you have to provide the project files in order to be able to change the LGPL code.
      - adrian_b 3y ago
        No, you do not have to provide any project files, even when everything is linked statically. Static linking can be split into two linking steps, first everything except the LGPL libraries can be linked into a big ELF object file, which no longer contains any information about the internal structure and the internal symbols, exactly like an executable file. The only difference between such an object file and an executable is that it contains unresolved external references, like a dynamically-linked executable. Then in the second and final linking step, the big binary object file is linked with the LGPL libraries. For compliance with LGPL it is enough to offer access to the big binary object file for the users who would want to replace the LGPL libraries.
- larschdk 3y ago
  My guess; Unity doesn't want LGPL code in component they re-distribute, because the responsibility to comply with the license requirements falls on them, since they are the ones redistributing. It's not that they can't, but they wont take that responsibility, which is understandable. They would basically need to audit every component to ensure that the end user can build and replace LGPL parts with their own.
  - toyg 3y ago
    Not really. They could just distribute things anyway, and simply invoke the license-termination clauses as soon as any infringement is detected by claimants - similarly to how (I expect) they would treat claims of copyright infringements on game assets. They are just being obtuse - which looks fishy when coupled with VLC's claims that they wouldn't allow them back in even if all LGPL code was removed. They probably don't want competition for some component.
  - captainmuon 3y ago
    I'd say it is even debatable whether Unity is really re-distributing in the sense of the LGPL or merely hosting. Redistribution is something between licensor and licensee, your web hoster or your telecom is not involved. But I guess that's another thing they don't want to test in court and it's easier to say they don't want it.
    - larschdk 3y ago
      The LGPL license doesn't work that way. The rights that it establishes follows every time you transfer the work between legal entities. If I transfer the work to you, I need to extend the rights granted in the license to you. I can't expect others to do it for me.
  - maratc 3y ago
    I think your guess is correct. GPL/LGPL is a contract that puts certain obligations on all parties; just by being a redistributor, Unity now becomes a party to a contract they never signed or even intended to sign. It's easier for them to refuse to be a party to that contract by not allowing any software under that license on their property to begin with.
- agsnu 3y ago
  My guess is that they want packages on the Unity store to be usable on all platforms they support. For example, if you build an app for iOS or visionOS, you have to distribute it via Apple’s stores, and there are technical barriers (code signing, DRM) that get in the way of an end user being able to exercise their right to replace LGPL components with modified versions. I mention this example because there was a big tie up for Unity and visionOS announced with the Apple Vision Pro last summer, but presumably the same applies to Unity games on consoles etc as well. I can see why from Unity’s perspective it is cleaner to just forbid LGPL entirely, that way it is harder for their customers to mistakenly violate licenses.
  - palata 3y ago
    > there are technical barriers (code signing, DRM) that get in the way of an end user being able to exercise their right to replace LGPL components with modified versions I wonder if that is an issue for LGPLv2. Pretty sure that for LGPLv3, the distributor would have to give instructions explaining how to do it (which they could not do), but LGPLv2 does not require that, right? As in, wouldn't code signing and DRM count as some kind of tivoization?
- mihaaly 3y ago
  Would it worth a try reporting other LGPL violations to Unity - as drawing attention to violations of their own 5.10.4 of Provider agreement - in a documented manner? Just to see how they proceed.
rendall 3y ago
Why would Unity do this?
- firtoz 3y ago
  Most of the good people have left Unity or have been laid off. Whoever remain are likely ill equipped to deal with anything. So I see these kinds of decisions as the death throes of the company.
- Diti 3y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/games/2023/sep/12/unity-engine-fees-backlash-response https://www.theguardian.com/games/2023/sep/12/unity-engine-f... Remember this? I wonder what’s going on in the Unity executive’s heads right now.
  - firtoz 3y ago
    "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"
  - ecuzzillo 3y ago
    The CEO has been fired since then.
    - CountHackulus 3y ago
      The CEO was the token the board fired to make it look like they had learned a lesson.
- usea 3y ago
  Incompetence is the most likely explanation.
- hiccuphippo 3y ago
  If you see them release their own video add-on in the next few months then there's the reason.
loa_in_ 3y ago
That makes the name Unity very ironic right now.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
toyg 3y ago
Can anyone explain what looks like complete idiocy here? Why would the LGPL be so "radioactive" from Unity's perspective? Looks like yet another faux pas by a company bent on self-destruction.
- reactordev 3y ago
  Anything derivative or including LGPL code assumes the license. It prohibits commercial use unless you also adopt LGPL. https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-software-licenses-101-lgpl-license/amp/ https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-software-licenses-101-lgp...
  - boxed 3y ago
    You are confusing GPL with LGPL.
    - reactordev 3y ago
      “Generally, dynamic linking of LGPL code is considered best practice, as static linking makes meeting the license requirements more complicated. While it is possible to comply with LGPL code that is integrated into proprietary code as a statically linked library, it requires more effort. There is a kind of safe harbor for using LGPL code as a dynamically linked library; for statically linked libraries, a distributor must offer access to not only the library’s source code, but other information or materials necessary to rebuild the program.” This makes IL2CPP kinda hairy in Unity-land. Since it’s being modified to static-link, it must be released as source. So no, I don’t think I’m confused at all.
      - adrian_b 3y ago
        LGPL has nothing to do with IL2CPP, even when the library is statically linked. Regardless how Unity might transpile their applications, they must be combined with a LGPL library only after everything has been converted into binary object files, by the linker. In order to comply with the LGPL requirement that the user must be able to rebuild the application after possibly modifying the LGPL library, the only thing that must be provided is the linker command line that creates the final static executable. No other information about the proprietary source files or about how they are compiled needs to be provided. If it is desired that no function names should be leaked from the proprietary code, everything except the LGPL libraries can be pre-linked into a big binary object file without information about the internal symbols, which can be linked with the LGPL libraries only as a final step for generating the statically-linked executable. In this way, there is absolutely no difference in the information provided when static linking is used and when dynamic linking is used. The claim that dynamic linking is necessary with LGPL libraries is completely wrong, because linking them statically, but only after linking the other libraries, is completely equivalent.
jamesholden 3y ago
From the article: After months of slow back-and-forth over email trying to find a compromise, including offering to exclude LGPL code from the assets, Unity basically told us we were not welcome back to their Store, ever. Even if we were to remove all LGPL code from the Unity package. Where it gets fun is that there are currently hundreds if not thousands of Unity assets that include LGPL dependencies (such as FFmpeg) in the Store right now. Enforcement is seemingly totally random, unless you get reported by someone, apparently.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
CodeCompost 3y ago
Weird pivot in the middle of the article where all of a sudden they're promoting a product. Is this an ad disguised as a clickbait article?
- jocoda 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - CodeCompost 3y ago
    Thanks! Luckily I was still allowed to modify my post.
  - mort96 3y ago
    Literally what about the title is click bait? They got banned from the Unity store and they expose a clear double standard in Unity's enforcement. Exactly as the title suggests. The negative reception here is absolutely incoherent.
    - jocoda 3y ago
      [flagged]
- oefrha 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - miyuru 3y ago
    this should have been 2 blog posts.
  - mort96 3y ago
    The whole article is essentially: 1. "Some background our plug-in" 2. "Unity banned our plug-in from their store" 3. "We explain why this seems like a double standard" 4. "We made our own store where people can get our plug-in now that it's not in the Unity store" IMO the only thing wrong with the blog post is that it's missing a paragraph after the "Introducing the Videolabs Store" heading. There should be a sentence or two there about how people can now get the Unity plug-in through the Videolabs Store before they go on to talk about everything else people can get there.
jasonjmcghee 3y ago
Look, I'm frustrated with Unity as a company too, but a hit piece as a product announcement?
- jovial_cavalier 3y ago
  It's not a hit piece if the allegations are true.
  - spywaregorilla 3y ago
    Not true. Folks love to print stories that are true but not noteworthy. And then they post a note about the things that were noteworthy but old news.
    - jovial_cavalier 3y ago
      That doesn't make it a hit piece. A hit piece is when you are slandering someone unfairly, not publishing something un-noteworthy. I suppose I don't know whether TFA is being unfair, but I have no reason to doubt what they say, and calling this a hit piece is a bit of a leap for me.
      - spywaregorilla 3y ago
        Publishing minor things and blowing them up to influence public opinionn is a hit piece
mayli 3y ago
The ban of "VLC for Unity integration".
numpad0 3y ago
Didn't Unity have its own included media stack?
- martz 3y ago
  they do but it's fairly limited.
ghusbands 3y ago
The LGPL gives end users the right to replace the LGPLed part with a modified version, and users presumably cannot alter parts of a downloaded Unity app. So it does seem that software using an LGPL library cannot be distributed on Unity or most any modern app store and still be in compliance with the LGPL. It's not viral, but it does give users rights that aren't natural under the app store distribution model.
- larschdk 3y ago
  It's not impossible to comply with LGPL under the app store model, but the responsibility falls on the distributor, which is Unity in this case. I can understand that that is something they are not able or willing to do. This doesn't mean that they can't comply with LGPL for components included in Unity itself. I don't see any double standard here.
  - tankenmate 3y ago
    You're right, but there is the large counterpoint of the fact that Unity is doing exactly that for other software licenced under the LGPL.
    - larschdk 3y ago
      Very different. They can do that, because they are in control of the components and build process. That's much harder for someone else's deliverables.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- captainmuon 3y ago
  I can give you a right, but that doesn't mean you're neccessary able to excercise that right. I can allow you to drive a tank on my property, but you probably can't afford one, and it would be banned by laws. I'm curious, does the LGPL state explicitly that the licensor guarantees that the licensee can excercise their granted rights in practice? There can always be external circumstances restricting what I can do. Or is it more like: The licensee (the unity package developer) can only use the code (VLC) if they guarantee that the sub-licensee (the package user or the end user) can excercise all their rights with no external conditions? Edit: I think LGPL 3 actually does demand this, in the context of preventing "tivoisation". However, libvlc is licensed under LGPL 2.1 as far as I can see.
winrid 3y ago
Steam also does not allow GPL licensed code: https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/sdk/uploading/distributing_opensource https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/sdk/uploading/distributin... Edit: if you want to link against SteamWorks
- seba_dos1 3y ago
  Games and applications distributed on Steam don't have to integrate with Steamworks SDK at all, and when they don't this licensing issue doesn't apply.
- jchw 3y ago
  Note that 1. this is mostly regarding the Steamworks SDK that you link to; sufficient care may be taken to try to make this linkage to Steamworks "compliant" as noted in the article, and 2. this is about GPL, not LGPL. Distributing LGPL code via Steam may introduce some potential murkiness, but it should be mostly kosher since I think Steam doesn't, in and of itself, impede on the user's ability to exercise the rights granted by LGPL.
  - winrid 3y ago
    Right, sorry, forgot that. Edited!
- SXX 3y ago
  You dont have to use Steamworks to be on Steam. There are a lot of games under GPL on Steam.
jchw 3y ago
I find the negative reception here confusing. Seems to me they got removed from a marketplace, so they launched their own. They put the announcement into an article about the thing that motivated what's being announced. That is generally what you do, because otherwise the article would leave you with the impression that you have no option going forward, and a follow-up would reach fewer people. Just doesn't make sense. Also, I'm no Unity expert, but C# integrations generally use PInvoke right? It's the most dynamic of linking, there's really no inherent reason LGPL libs can't be used in Unity games. At worst, Unity should make sure you know your obligations, but I don't understand the necessity of a blanket ban. I'd be very surprised if VideoLAN, a well-respected organization that has been doing open source work for a very long time, had such a fundamental misunderstanding of the software licenses they use. Either way, a request: please stop using "clickbait" to describe literally anything you don't like. The article is chiefly about their ban, even the announcement is. By all means, critique whatever you want, but that's simply not what clickbait is. Clickbait is more like "actually we didn't get banned, But..."
- benj111 3y ago
  The sudden disjoint between story, and selling you a thing does seem very click baity. I think it's because they didn't stay in story mode. "So we decided to set up X..." To me it reads as if the company has been around for a while and this story has been dug/made up purely to sell a product. And we should expect 15 more of these. I suspect it's just bad/honest (?) Writing though.
  - tankenmate 3y ago
    The article said they got banned from the Unity store several months ago and tried for months to reconcile the issue, and now they have come up with a solution for their customers in the wake of the banning. They even included the correspondence from Unity in their article, so barring Unity coming forward with evidence of double dealing on the part of VideoLAN I struggle to see how "this story has been dug/made up purely to sell a product". Without some evidence your conclusion seems to be a hand wave.
moss2 3y ago
Wouldn't be surprised if Unity is developing their own multimedia engine they want to sell. Shitty practices like this is what makes me want to get into politics.
- yard2010 3y ago
  Ikr if you can't beat them join them and hf
- UberFly 3y ago
  This was my first thought. They can then sell some poorly-executed knockoff, ignoring that a partnership with actual experts would have been the best for their customers.
jbk 3y ago
(Disclaimer: President of VideoLAN here) Just a few remarks: VLC-Unity plugin is fully open source, and anyone skilled enough can build it themself. We've tried for months to discuss with Unity and it was a nightmare. We've had discussions for years with Apple AppStore, Google Play store, and Windows Stores (including Windows Mobile + UWP). It's always challenging, but Unity was a headache an order of magnitude bigger: no answers, 3 different answers contradicting each other, and plain bad faith. De facto, they use LGPL and open source to build their platform, but we're not allowed to have open source on the store? Not even LGPL with a layer of a different license? Why us? Why not the other people doing it? Very frustrating. So, yes, because some people need to buy support or licenses, even if everything is open source (don't want to build themselves, purchase department that needs a support contract, etc...), they need to have a small store. This is different from what we see usually, but there is a need, so this is a small store for that. For most of HN users, you should just build it yourself. You should be skilled enough for that :)
- vertis 3y ago
  Ah, when I was using Unity I would often buy items I could have built myself even though they were open source, for several reasons: - only so many hours in the day - it's nice to pay people for things they work on - stable release version I'm thankfully not using Unity any more. Watched the recent installs cluster** from a bemused distance.
  - yard2010 3y ago
    I would wage against it. It's as shitty as Blockbuster. No reason they won't end up selling for peanuts
- readyplayernull 3y ago
  Hope Dang pins your comment. The only way to get a consistent response from Unity is paying support. Their store review queue takes months, now with the layoffs it will only get worse. They are hurting themselves by not having your plugin. Feels like they are building their own solution but I bet it will take years to release and will be broken. Unless you are selling the plugin, you shouldn't care. You can host it anywhere and the community will find it.
gumby 3y ago
When I originally wrote the LGPL (v1, back around 1991) we could not imagine anything like an App Store or signed binaries. Dynamic linking provided an easy way for users to upgrade the library code. Since the user doesn’t have the freedom to update the libs on ios etc I don’t see how you could deploy LGPL code on those platforms; since one of the points of using unity is its cross-platform support, that suggests you’d have to find another library unless you were only deploying on real OSes. But is that Unity’s problem?
- qwertox 3y ago
  > But is that Unity’s problem? Apparently not. "Unity itself, both the Editor and the runtime (which means your shipped game) is already using LGPL dependencies"
  - tonmoy 3y ago
    So I could be missing something, but the editor itself is not getting shipped to iOS devices, only the resulting binaries are.
    - Vinnl 3y ago
      That sounds like the "and the runtime (which means your shipped game)" part?
      - doctorpangloss 3y ago
        Nobody in this thread has firmly pointed to LGPL code being linked or used in the iOS runtime in a Unity 2021 or later built game. Having not looked at this myself, I can't say either way, but it is almost certainly wrong to say that the runtime contains otherwise LGPL code that was not expressly licensed or permitted for the purpose by its authors.
    - voxic11 3y ago
      The resulting binaries depend on the unity runtime which itself depends on these LGPL components.
mort96 3y ago
This comment section is so interesting. It's a great example of the value of PR; that it's not what you do that's important, but how you frame it. How VLC should have framed this post: 1. Our plug-in got banned from the Unity Store for what we believe are bad reasons. Other high-profile plug-ins with LGPL code are still there. 2. To ensure that our users can still get our plug-in, we set up our own store which sells the plug-in. 3. Also the store has all these other services you can buy. But they omitted the second part. And the simple act of not explicitly connecting the store to the plug-in ban through enough PR speak seems to have been enough to make people here characterize this blog post as simply an ad for their store.
- martz 3y ago
  You are correct, I should have framed it this way. I've edited the post. Thanks.
- polski-g 3y ago
  Their plugin wasn't banned, their entire account was banned.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
sushi_dragon 3y ago
ff
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cupofjoakim 3y ago
Not a video game developer - but I wonder if it'd be a good call for videolan to make a vlc plugin for godot? It's still gaining momentum and (afaik, could be wrong) have the same thing as unity with a inbuilt media stack but it's fairly limited.
globalnode 3y ago
[flagged]
- swores 3y ago
  I'm not a moderator so you have no obligation to listen to me, but I'll make a request none the less: please consider only commenting when you've something to say that adds to the conversation in some way. The HN guidelines are pretty good at steering people towards contributing in positive rather than negative ways: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
nightowl_games 3y ago
How does unity itself comply with the LGPL if it uses LGPL code? The blog post also says all games made with Unity depend on LGPL code. How do they comply? I'm so glad I generally don't have to think about this kind of stuff day to day.
larodi 3y ago
Software business ha never been too polite to competition.
yard2010 3y ago
Fuck unity. Every time people have fun some aspiring jerk with an MBA comes to ruin the party for everyone involved.
- stackedinserter 3y ago
  It's not an MBA jerk, it's just party grows in size and becomes visible to the judicial system, therefore susceptible to adult problems such as lawsuits from FSF.
KomoD 3y ago
> Unity basically told us we were not welcome back to their Store, ever. Even if we were to remove all LGPL code from the Unity package. Why not include screenshots of these emails too?
sylware 3y ago
There is no issue with the LGPL. The lesser GPL does not propagate to the whole. weird.
nojvek 3y ago
App stores (or generally moderation) is a complex thing to get right. Once you have humans in the loop, you have bias. Not even humans can follow the set ambiguous guidelines and the appeals process is mostly broken. AI can somewhat help but language models are just that - language models - they don't have any deep understanding. Fundamentally I believe moderation will always be broken until we get algorithms capable of understanding the deeper meaning of things and apply them uniformly.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
chrismorgan 3y ago
> The packages "VLC for Unity (Android)", "VLC for Unity (UWP)", "VLC for Unity (Windows)" have been deprecated. This is not deprecation. This is removal and banning.
zackmorris 3y ago
It might be time for a mutually-assured destruction lobby/guild. In this case, when a company like Unity bans this VLC project for using LGPL software, the guild would open individual lawsuits against them to remove each of the other projects using LGPL code, based on various legal precedents around discrimination. Which would make it untenable to single out projects like this. This is a negative or low-vibration idea, I realize. Which is actually my point. If a policy causes one to go down these anger/fear/ego-based rabbit holes, then something is suspect with it. This is the litmus test I use. Somewhere along the way, we lost the wisdom or will to understand the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. And we sold our souls when we allowed wealth and power to override our discernment of right and wrong. If Unity wants to step into its power, it can start by abandoning knee-jerk policies designed to protect itself from liability against stupid laws. It can start saving a war chest to go to bat against patent/copyright/trademark trolls for the rest of us and protect the projects within its ecosystem instead of throwing its contributors under the bus. It can set an example for other large companies to follow so that we can eventually reform the system. But whatever all this malarky is has got to stop. I really want to like Unity for how it aligns with my goals as a shareware game developer in my formative years and a lot of other reasons, but they make it very hard to do so.
- flkenosad 3y ago
  > This is a negative or low-vibration idea, I realize. Which is actually my point. If a policy causes one to go down these anger/fear/ego-based rabbit holes, then something is suspect with it. This is the litmus test I use. This is brilliant.
- cmeacham98 3y ago
  > based on various legal precedents around discrimination. Which would make it untenable to single out projects like this What precedents are those? Can you link or name the cases? I've never heard of such legal theory.
  - zackmorris 3y ago
    IANAL but you identified the core issue. I'm having trouble finding precedent for this, mainly because private businesses are legally allowed to choose who they do business with, which can be a form of legally protected discrimination. The closest thing I found is the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard Supreme Court decision which effectively ended affirmative action in the US, since Harvard is a private college "doing business with" its students (customers): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v... https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-affirmative-action-programs-in-college-admissions/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow... SCOTUS said that race/ethnicity and gender identity are protected classes, so discriminating by them is illegal, meaning that affirmative action can't legally be imposed on universities anymore. Now, there are extenuating circumstances with that due to the US's civil rights battles and entrenched practices in other areas like policing and access to capital which impose additional struggle on individuals, depending on which protected classes apply to them. So throwing out affirmative action may give individuals unaffected by those practices an additional advantage (privilage). Meaning that the court's decision may have an effect opposite to the one intended, as stated by the dissenting justices. I'm providing this for context, because it's an example of how the letter of the law can be in conflict with the spirit of the law. As a private entity, Unity must still follow federal antidiscrimination laws. It's not allowed to remove an app from its store based on the race/ethnicity/gender of its author(s) for example. But prominance/budget and potential liabilities from lawsuits by intellectual property trolls are not protected classes. Currently Unity appears to be free to de-list any app for any reason outside protected classes. But that discriminitory freedom is also being challenged for antitrust reasons. If a store is dominant to the point that competitors are not widely known by the mainstream, then any type of discrimination could potentially become collusion. For example if Apple delisted an app that competed with its own in order to noncompetitively boost its own sales, then that can be challenged in court. And two or more companies collaborating to remove competing apps in each other's stores can also be challenged in court. The realities of software development are daunting. It often takes many years of work by countless individuals and budgets in the multiple thousands or even millions of dollars to ship an app. The libraries which the app relies upon are also unique in that an alternative may not be available, either for budgetary reasons around refactoring or for compliance with controversial laws like the DMCA. So an app's dependencies and licenses could be thought of as an ethnic identity for software because they can't be changed in practice. It's what they are. Main takeaways: 1. A unilateral ban of an app by a company can represent a power imbalance resulting in injustice because the guidelines the app must follow to regain entry are not tenable. In other words dependencies, licences and other nonfungible aspects of software may need to become protected classes. 2. Is the law being applied unequaly between VLC and other apps with LGPL dependencies, or with preferential treatment? 3. What recourse do developers have other than to sue? Will their case have merit? Are there financial barriers and opportunity costs to such actions? The realities of such recourse can impose such hardship on injured parties that their involuntary surrender represents a kind of injustice that favors moneyed parties. Keywords and avenues to pursue: unequal application preferential treatment protected class Would lawsuits against other companies along these lines reduce productivity in the tech sector by making it more difficult to do business, highlighting a need to reform legislation around this issue?
ChuckMcM 3y ago
Contextual note on VLC (and Videolan) their stance on software patents is well known[1] and not something people who either want software patents or are attacked by software patents will take on. [1] https://www.videolan.org/press/patents.html https://www.videolan.org/press/patents.html

1027 points by 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 3y ago

It sounds like this article tells only part of the story. Why would Unity ban VLC? I wonder if they have given any official comments about this.

DeathArrow 3y ago

They still can publish their assets outside of the Unity store. Users can download them and install them in Unity. But I agree it's not a nice move from behalf of Unity.

nacs 3y ago
And in the linked article, VLC mentions they have now done that -- they have their own site to download the plugins.

chii 3y ago

What's the rational for not allowing LGPL code on the unity store? It makes no sense for the ban imho (tho i m not very familiar with unity store's model so i might just be missing something).

paulmd 3y ago
intredasting, they rather explicitly appear to be tilting against viral licensing: > 5.10.4 Provider represents and warrants that its Assets shall not contain (a) any software licensed under the GNU General Public License or GNU Library or Lesser General Public License, or any other license with terms that include a requirement to extend such license to any modification or combined work and provide for the distribution of the combined or modified product’s source code upon demand so that Customer content becomes subject to the terms of such license; or (b) any software that is a modification or derivative of any software licensed under the GNU General Public License or Library or Lesser Public License, or any other license with terms similar thereto so that Customer content become subject to the terms of such license. LGPL doesn't impose combined redistribution requirements, does it? They're just tilting against that whole ecosystem specially. And if you apply the same standard as LGPL, MIT/BSD are basically the same right? Probably CDDL falls in too? that's absolutely a crazy thing but it's pretty straightforward in the licensing agreement. No, no, they got it all wrong: "not, invented here!"
- adrian_b 3y ago
  LGPL is a regular license, it is not a viral license. GPL is a viral license. The GNU glibc uses LGPL and almost any program run on a Linux system uses glibc, regardless in what programming language it has been written, at least for the system calls. If LGPL had been a viral license too, all programs would have been affected.
  - ghusbands 3y ago
    Doesn't the LGPL give users the right to replace the LGPL part with a modified library of their choice? It seems doubtful that users can modify downloaded Unity apps at their leisure, so that would mean that LGPL cannot be supported on Unity, wouldn't it? Though then it would seem that LGPL libraries on almost any app store are being used against their license terms, so I must be wrong.
    - adrian_b 3y ago
      The obvious way to comply with LGPL is to link dynamically the LGPL libraries, even if everything else is linked statically. I am pretty sure that the Unity executables link dynamically glibc anyway. The alternative is to do the static linking in 2 steps. First link everything else into a big ELF object file, then do the final linking of the LGPL libraries. For compliance with the LGPL, it is enough to provide access to the big binary object file, so that a user may relink the possibly modified LGPL libraries, if desired. A dynamically-linked executable and an object file that needs a final static linking step with additional libraries have almost identical content and they provide equivalent information.
      - pzo 3y ago
        Sometimes even dynamic linking might be not enough - on iOS you can build dynamic frameworks that are dynamically linked but they are signed with developer provisioning key when distributed via App Store. AFAIK there is not other way for end user to swap such dynamic framework/library unless developer will provide source code or object files or compiled code (e.g. in other dynamic framework that links dynamically to such LGPL code). Not sure about jailbroken iPhones. Also for more complicated iOS projects (that require iOS capabilities e.g. in-app-purchase, push notifications, app pay, icloud etc.) end user would need to have a paid apple developer account to create and sign build.
charcircuit 3y ago
The rational is that you should be able to just install any asset from the store in your game and be good to go. With an LGPL asset now you have to let customers be able to edit that addon and rebuild your game with it which would be a pain, and most developers do not want to give out the unity project files. Having a simple licensing story for assets on the store lets users have trust in whatever they see they can use in their game worry free. Edit: Removed bit about LGPL applying to the original code because of static linkage because it was incorrect and distracting from my point
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- adrian_b 3y ago
  What you say is not correct. Only linking with a GPL library makes GPL applicable to the whole program. This is the difference between LGPL and GPL. LGPL is a normal license that applies only to the library. Since glibc uses LGPL, if your theory had been true than almost all programs run on a Linux system, regardless of their origin, would have been covered by LGPL.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    The LGPL code gets statically linked with the rest of your code which means that you have to provide the project files in order to be able to change the LGPL code.
    - adrian_b 3y ago
      No, you do not have to provide any project files, even when everything is linked statically. Static linking can be split into two linking steps, first everything except the LGPL libraries can be linked into a big ELF object file, which no longer contains any information about the internal structure and the internal symbols, exactly like an executable file. The only difference between such an object file and an executable is that it contains unresolved external references, like a dynamically-linked executable. Then in the second and final linking step, the big binary object file is linked with the LGPL libraries. For compliance with LGPL it is enough to offer access to the big binary object file for the users who would want to replace the LGPL libraries.
larschdk 3y ago
My guess; Unity doesn't want LGPL code in component they re-distribute, because the responsibility to comply with the license requirements falls on them, since they are the ones redistributing. It's not that they can't, but they wont take that responsibility, which is understandable. They would basically need to audit every component to ensure that the end user can build and replace LGPL parts with their own.
- toyg 3y ago
  Not really. They could just distribute things anyway, and simply invoke the license-termination clauses as soon as any infringement is detected by claimants - similarly to how (I expect) they would treat claims of copyright infringements on game assets. They are just being obtuse - which looks fishy when coupled with VLC's claims that they wouldn't allow them back in even if all LGPL code was removed. They probably don't want competition for some component.
- captainmuon 3y ago
  I'd say it is even debatable whether Unity is really re-distributing in the sense of the LGPL or merely hosting. Redistribution is something between licensor and licensee, your web hoster or your telecom is not involved. But I guess that's another thing they don't want to test in court and it's easier to say they don't want it.
  - larschdk 3y ago
    The LGPL license doesn't work that way. The rights that it establishes follows every time you transfer the work between legal entities. If I transfer the work to you, I need to extend the rights granted in the license to you. I can't expect others to do it for me.
- maratc 3y ago
  I think your guess is correct. GPL/LGPL is a contract that puts certain obligations on all parties; just by being a redistributor, Unity now becomes a party to a contract they never signed or even intended to sign. It's easier for them to refuse to be a party to that contract by not allowing any software under that license on their property to begin with.
agsnu 3y ago
My guess is that they want packages on the Unity store to be usable on all platforms they support. For example, if you build an app for iOS or visionOS, you have to distribute it via Apple’s stores, and there are technical barriers (code signing, DRM) that get in the way of an end user being able to exercise their right to replace LGPL components with modified versions. I mention this example because there was a big tie up for Unity and visionOS announced with the Apple Vision Pro last summer, but presumably the same applies to Unity games on consoles etc as well. I can see why from Unity’s perspective it is cleaner to just forbid LGPL entirely, that way it is harder for their customers to mistakenly violate licenses.
- palata 3y ago
  > there are technical barriers (code signing, DRM) that get in the way of an end user being able to exercise their right to replace LGPL components with modified versions I wonder if that is an issue for LGPLv2. Pretty sure that for LGPLv3, the distributor would have to give instructions explaining how to do it (which they could not do), but LGPLv2 does not require that, right? As in, wouldn't code signing and DRM count as some kind of tivoization?
mihaaly 3y ago
Would it worth a try reporting other LGPL violations to Unity - as drawing attention to violations of their own 5.10.4 of Provider agreement - in a documented manner? Just to see how they proceed.

rendall 3y ago

Why would Unity do this?

firtoz 3y ago
Most of the good people have left Unity or have been laid off. Whoever remain are likely ill equipped to deal with anything. So I see these kinds of decisions as the death throes of the company.
Diti 3y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/games/2023/sep/12/unity-engine-fees-backlash-response https://www.theguardian.com/games/2023/sep/12/unity-engine-f... Remember this? I wonder what’s going on in the Unity executive’s heads right now.
- firtoz 3y ago
  "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"
- ecuzzillo 3y ago
  The CEO has been fired since then.
  - CountHackulus 3y ago
    The CEO was the token the board fired to make it look like they had learned a lesson.
usea 3y ago
Incompetence is the most likely explanation.
hiccuphippo 3y ago
If you see them release their own video add-on in the next few months then there's the reason.

loa_in_ 3y ago

That makes the name Unity very ironic right now.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

toyg 3y ago

Can anyone explain what looks like complete idiocy here? Why would the LGPL be so "radioactive" from Unity's perspective? Looks like yet another faux pas by a company bent on self-destruction.

reactordev 3y ago
Anything derivative or including LGPL code assumes the license. It prohibits commercial use unless you also adopt LGPL. https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-software-licenses-101-lgpl-license/amp/ https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-software-licenses-101-lgp...
- boxed 3y ago
  You are confusing GPL with LGPL.
  - reactordev 3y ago
    “Generally, dynamic linking of LGPL code is considered best practice, as static linking makes meeting the license requirements more complicated. While it is possible to comply with LGPL code that is integrated into proprietary code as a statically linked library, it requires more effort. There is a kind of safe harbor for using LGPL code as a dynamically linked library; for statically linked libraries, a distributor must offer access to not only the library’s source code, but other information or materials necessary to rebuild the program.” This makes IL2CPP kinda hairy in Unity-land. Since it’s being modified to static-link, it must be released as source. So no, I don’t think I’m confused at all.
    - adrian_b 3y ago
      LGPL has nothing to do with IL2CPP, even when the library is statically linked. Regardless how Unity might transpile their applications, they must be combined with a LGPL library only after everything has been converted into binary object files, by the linker. In order to comply with the LGPL requirement that the user must be able to rebuild the application after possibly modifying the LGPL library, the only thing that must be provided is the linker command line that creates the final static executable. No other information about the proprietary source files or about how they are compiled needs to be provided. If it is desired that no function names should be leaked from the proprietary code, everything except the LGPL libraries can be pre-linked into a big binary object file without information about the internal symbols, which can be linked with the LGPL libraries only as a final step for generating the statically-linked executable. In this way, there is absolutely no difference in the information provided when static linking is used and when dynamic linking is used. The claim that dynamic linking is necessary with LGPL libraries is completely wrong, because linking them statically, but only after linking the other libraries, is completely equivalent.

jamesholden 3y ago

From the article: After months of slow back-and-forth over email trying to find a compromise, including offering to exclude LGPL code from the assets, Unity basically told us we were not welcome back to their Store, ever. Even if we were to remove all LGPL code from the Unity package. Where it gets fun is that there are currently hundreds if not thousands of Unity assets that include LGPL dependencies (such as FFmpeg) in the Store right now. Enforcement is seemingly totally random, unless you get reported by someone, apparently.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

CodeCompost 3y ago

Weird pivot in the middle of the article where all of a sudden they're promoting a product. Is this an ad disguised as a clickbait article?

jocoda 3y ago
[flagged]
- CodeCompost 3y ago
  Thanks! Luckily I was still allowed to modify my post.
- mort96 3y ago
  Literally what about the title is click bait? They got banned from the Unity store and they expose a clear double standard in Unity's enforcement. Exactly as the title suggests. The negative reception here is absolutely incoherent.
  - jocoda 3y ago
    [flagged]
oefrha 3y ago
[flagged]
- miyuru 3y ago
  this should have been 2 blog posts.
- mort96 3y ago
  The whole article is essentially: 1. "Some background our plug-in" 2. "Unity banned our plug-in from their store" 3. "We explain why this seems like a double standard" 4. "We made our own store where people can get our plug-in now that it's not in the Unity store" IMO the only thing wrong with the blog post is that it's missing a paragraph after the "Introducing the Videolabs Store" heading. There should be a sentence or two there about how people can now get the Unity plug-in through the Videolabs Store before they go on to talk about everything else people can get there.

jasonjmcghee 3y ago

Look, I'm frustrated with Unity as a company too, but a hit piece as a product announcement?

jovial_cavalier 3y ago
It's not a hit piece if the allegations are true.
- spywaregorilla 3y ago
  Not true. Folks love to print stories that are true but not noteworthy. And then they post a note about the things that were noteworthy but old news.
  - jovial_cavalier 3y ago
    That doesn't make it a hit piece. A hit piece is when you are slandering someone unfairly, not publishing something un-noteworthy. I suppose I don't know whether TFA is being unfair, but I have no reason to doubt what they say, and calling this a hit piece is a bit of a leap for me.
    - spywaregorilla 3y ago
      Publishing minor things and blowing them up to influence public opinionn is a hit piece

mayli 3y ago

The ban of "VLC for Unity integration".

numpad0 3y ago

Didn't Unity have its own included media stack?

martz 3y ago
they do but it's fairly limited.

ghusbands 3y ago

The LGPL gives end users the right to replace the LGPLed part with a modified version, and users presumably cannot alter parts of a downloaded Unity app. So it does seem that software using an LGPL library cannot be distributed on Unity or most any modern app store and still be in compliance with the LGPL. It's not viral, but it does give users rights that aren't natural under the app store distribution model.

larschdk 3y ago
It's not impossible to comply with LGPL under the app store model, but the responsibility falls on the distributor, which is Unity in this case. I can understand that that is something they are not able or willing to do. This doesn't mean that they can't comply with LGPL for components included in Unity itself. I don't see any double standard here.
- tankenmate 3y ago
  You're right, but there is the large counterpoint of the fact that Unity is doing exactly that for other software licenced under the LGPL.
  - larschdk 3y ago
    Very different. They can do that, because they are in control of the components and build process. That's much harder for someone else's deliverables.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
captainmuon 3y ago
I can give you a right, but that doesn't mean you're neccessary able to excercise that right. I can allow you to drive a tank on my property, but you probably can't afford one, and it would be banned by laws. I'm curious, does the LGPL state explicitly that the licensor guarantees that the licensee can excercise their granted rights in practice? There can always be external circumstances restricting what I can do. Or is it more like: The licensee (the unity package developer) can only use the code (VLC) if they guarantee that the sub-licensee (the package user or the end user) can excercise all their rights with no external conditions? Edit: I think LGPL 3 actually does demand this, in the context of preventing "tivoisation". However, libvlc is licensed under LGPL 2.1 as far as I can see.

winrid 3y ago

Steam also does not allow GPL licensed code: https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/sdk/uploading/distributing_opensource https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/sdk/uploading/distributin... Edit: if you want to link against SteamWorks

seba_dos1 3y ago
Games and applications distributed on Steam don't have to integrate with Steamworks SDK at all, and when they don't this licensing issue doesn't apply.
jchw 3y ago
Note that 1. this is mostly regarding the Steamworks SDK that you link to; sufficient care may be taken to try to make this linkage to Steamworks "compliant" as noted in the article, and 2. this is about GPL, not LGPL. Distributing LGPL code via Steam may introduce some potential murkiness, but it should be mostly kosher since I think Steam doesn't, in and of itself, impede on the user's ability to exercise the rights granted by LGPL.
- winrid 3y ago
  Right, sorry, forgot that. Edited!
SXX 3y ago
You dont have to use Steamworks to be on Steam. There are a lot of games under GPL on Steam.

jchw 3y ago

I find the negative reception here confusing. Seems to me they got removed from a marketplace, so they launched their own. They put the announcement into an article about the thing that motivated what's being announced. That is generally what you do, because otherwise the article would leave you with the impression that you have no option going forward, and a follow-up would reach fewer people. Just doesn't make sense. Also, I'm no Unity expert, but C# integrations generally use PInvoke right? It's the most dynamic of linking, there's really no inherent reason LGPL libs can't be used in Unity games. At worst, Unity should make sure you know your obligations, but I don't understand the necessity of a blanket ban. I'd be very surprised if VideoLAN, a well-respected organization that has been doing open source work for a very long time, had such a fundamental misunderstanding of the software licenses they use. Either way, a request: please stop using "clickbait" to describe literally anything you don't like. The article is chiefly about their ban, even the announcement is. By all means, critique whatever you want, but that's simply not what clickbait is. Clickbait is more like "actually we didn't get banned, But..."

benj111 3y ago
The sudden disjoint between story, and selling you a thing does seem very click baity. I think it's because they didn't stay in story mode. "So we decided to set up X..." To me it reads as if the company has been around for a while and this story has been dug/made up purely to sell a product. And we should expect 15 more of these. I suspect it's just bad/honest (?) Writing though.
- tankenmate 3y ago
  The article said they got banned from the Unity store several months ago and tried for months to reconcile the issue, and now they have come up with a solution for their customers in the wake of the banning. They even included the correspondence from Unity in their article, so barring Unity coming forward with evidence of double dealing on the part of VideoLAN I struggle to see how "this story has been dug/made up purely to sell a product". Without some evidence your conclusion seems to be a hand wave.

moss2 3y ago

Wouldn't be surprised if Unity is developing their own multimedia engine they want to sell. Shitty practices like this is what makes me want to get into politics.

yard2010 3y ago
Ikr if you can't beat them join them and hf
UberFly 3y ago
This was my first thought. They can then sell some poorly-executed knockoff, ignoring that a partnership with actual experts would have been the best for their customers.

jbk 3y ago

(Disclaimer: President of VideoLAN here) Just a few remarks: VLC-Unity plugin is fully open source, and anyone skilled enough can build it themself. We've tried for months to discuss with Unity and it was a nightmare. We've had discussions for years with Apple AppStore, Google Play store, and Windows Stores (including Windows Mobile + UWP). It's always challenging, but Unity was a headache an order of magnitude bigger: no answers, 3 different answers contradicting each other, and plain bad faith. De facto, they use LGPL and open source to build their platform, but we're not allowed to have open source on the store? Not even LGPL with a layer of a different license? Why us? Why not the other people doing it? Very frustrating. So, yes, because some people need to buy support or licenses, even if everything is open source (don't want to build themselves, purchase department that needs a support contract, etc...), they need to have a small store. This is different from what we see usually, but there is a need, so this is a small store for that. For most of HN users, you should just build it yourself. You should be skilled enough for that :)

vertis 3y ago
Ah, when I was using Unity I would often buy items I could have built myself even though they were open source, for several reasons: - only so many hours in the day - it's nice to pay people for things they work on - stable release version I'm thankfully not using Unity any more. Watched the recent installs cluster** from a bemused distance.
- yard2010 3y ago
  I would wage against it. It's as shitty as Blockbuster. No reason they won't end up selling for peanuts
readyplayernull 3y ago
Hope Dang pins your comment. The only way to get a consistent response from Unity is paying support. Their store review queue takes months, now with the layoffs it will only get worse. They are hurting themselves by not having your plugin. Feels like they are building their own solution but I bet it will take years to release and will be broken. Unless you are selling the plugin, you shouldn't care. You can host it anywhere and the community will find it.

gumby 3y ago

When I originally wrote the LGPL (v1, back around 1991) we could not imagine anything like an App Store or signed binaries. Dynamic linking provided an easy way for users to upgrade the library code. Since the user doesn’t have the freedom to update the libs on ios etc I don’t see how you could deploy LGPL code on those platforms; since one of the points of using unity is its cross-platform support, that suggests you’d have to find another library unless you were only deploying on real OSes. But is that Unity’s problem?

qwertox 3y ago
> But is that Unity’s problem? Apparently not. "Unity itself, both the Editor and the runtime (which means your shipped game) is already using LGPL dependencies"
- tonmoy 3y ago
  So I could be missing something, but the editor itself is not getting shipped to iOS devices, only the resulting binaries are.
  - Vinnl 3y ago
    That sounds like the "and the runtime (which means your shipped game)" part?
    - doctorpangloss 3y ago
      Nobody in this thread has firmly pointed to LGPL code being linked or used in the iOS runtime in a Unity 2021 or later built game. Having not looked at this myself, I can't say either way, but it is almost certainly wrong to say that the runtime contains otherwise LGPL code that was not expressly licensed or permitted for the purpose by its authors.
  - voxic11 3y ago
    The resulting binaries depend on the unity runtime which itself depends on these LGPL components.

mort96 3y ago

This comment section is so interesting. It's a great example of the value of PR; that it's not what you do that's important, but how you frame it. How VLC should have framed this post: 1. Our plug-in got banned from the Unity Store for what we believe are bad reasons. Other high-profile plug-ins with LGPL code are still there. 2. To ensure that our users can still get our plug-in, we set up our own store which sells the plug-in. 3. Also the store has all these other services you can buy. But they omitted the second part. And the simple act of not explicitly connecting the store to the plug-in ban through enough PR speak seems to have been enough to make people here characterize this blog post as simply an ad for their store.

martz 3y ago
You are correct, I should have framed it this way. I've edited the post. Thanks.
polski-g 3y ago
Their plugin wasn't banned, their entire account was banned.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

sushi_dragon 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

cupofjoakim 3y ago

Not a video game developer - but I wonder if it'd be a good call for videolan to make a vlc plugin for godot? It's still gaining momentum and (afaik, could be wrong) have the same thing as unity with a inbuilt media stack but it's fairly limited.

globalnode 3y ago

[flagged]

swores 3y ago
I'm not a moderator so you have no obligation to listen to me, but I'll make a request none the less: please consider only commenting when you've something to say that adds to the conversation in some way. The HN guidelines are pretty good at steering people towards contributing in positive rather than negative ways: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

nightowl_games 3y ago

How does unity itself comply with the LGPL if it uses LGPL code? The blog post also says all games made with Unity depend on LGPL code. How do they comply? I'm so glad I generally don't have to think about this kind of stuff day to day.

larodi 3y ago

Software business ha never been too polite to competition.

yard2010 3y ago

Fuck unity. Every time people have fun some aspiring jerk with an MBA comes to ruin the party for everyone involved.

stackedinserter 3y ago
It's not an MBA jerk, it's just party grows in size and becomes visible to the judicial system, therefore susceptible to adult problems such as lawsuits from FSF.

KomoD 3y ago

> Unity basically told us we were not welcome back to their Store, ever. Even if we were to remove all LGPL code from the Unity package. Why not include screenshots of these emails too?

sylware 3y ago

There is no issue with the LGPL. The lesser GPL does not propagate to the whole. weird.

nojvek 3y ago

App stores (or generally moderation) is a complex thing to get right. Once you have humans in the loop, you have bias. Not even humans can follow the set ambiguous guidelines and the appeals process is mostly broken. AI can somewhat help but language models are just that - language models - they don't have any deep understanding. Fundamentally I believe moderation will always be broken until we get algorithms capable of understanding the deeper meaning of things and apply them uniformly.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

chrismorgan 3y ago

> The packages "VLC for Unity (Android)", "VLC for Unity (UWP)", "VLC for Unity (Windows)" have been deprecated. This is not deprecation. This is removal and banning.

zackmorris 3y ago

It might be time for a mutually-assured destruction lobby/guild. In this case, when a company like Unity bans this VLC project for using LGPL software, the guild would open individual lawsuits against them to remove each of the other projects using LGPL code, based on various legal precedents around discrimination. Which would make it untenable to single out projects like this. This is a negative or low-vibration idea, I realize. Which is actually my point. If a policy causes one to go down these anger/fear/ego-based rabbit holes, then something is suspect with it. This is the litmus test I use. Somewhere along the way, we lost the wisdom or will to understand the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. And we sold our souls when we allowed wealth and power to override our discernment of right and wrong. If Unity wants to step into its power, it can start by abandoning knee-jerk policies designed to protect itself from liability against stupid laws. It can start saving a war chest to go to bat against patent/copyright/trademark trolls for the rest of us and protect the projects within its ecosystem instead of throwing its contributors under the bus. It can set an example for other large companies to follow so that we can eventually reform the system. But whatever all this malarky is has got to stop. I really want to like Unity for how it aligns with my goals as a shareware game developer in my formative years and a lot of other reasons, but they make it very hard to do so.

flkenosad 3y ago
> This is a negative or low-vibration idea, I realize. Which is actually my point. If a policy causes one to go down these anger/fear/ego-based rabbit holes, then something is suspect with it. This is the litmus test I use. This is brilliant.
cmeacham98 3y ago
> based on various legal precedents around discrimination. Which would make it untenable to single out projects like this What precedents are those? Can you link or name the cases? I've never heard of such legal theory.
- zackmorris 3y ago
  IANAL but you identified the core issue. I'm having trouble finding precedent for this, mainly because private businesses are legally allowed to choose who they do business with, which can be a form of legally protected discrimination. The closest thing I found is the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard Supreme Court decision which effectively ended affirmative action in the US, since Harvard is a private college "doing business with" its students (customers): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v... https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-affirmative-action-programs-in-college-admissions/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow... SCOTUS said that race/ethnicity and gender identity are protected classes, so discriminating by them is illegal, meaning that affirmative action can't legally be imposed on universities anymore. Now, there are extenuating circumstances with that due to the US's civil rights battles and entrenched practices in other areas like policing and access to capital which impose additional struggle on individuals, depending on which protected classes apply to them. So throwing out affirmative action may give individuals unaffected by those practices an additional advantage (privilage). Meaning that the court's decision may have an effect opposite to the one intended, as stated by the dissenting justices. I'm providing this for context, because it's an example of how the letter of the law can be in conflict with the spirit of the law. As a private entity, Unity must still follow federal antidiscrimination laws. It's not allowed to remove an app from its store based on the race/ethnicity/gender of its author(s) for example. But prominance/budget and potential liabilities from lawsuits by intellectual property trolls are not protected classes. Currently Unity appears to be free to de-list any app for any reason outside protected classes. But that discriminitory freedom is also being challenged for antitrust reasons. If a store is dominant to the point that competitors are not widely known by the mainstream, then any type of discrimination could potentially become collusion. For example if Apple delisted an app that competed with its own in order to noncompetitively boost its own sales, then that can be challenged in court. And two or more companies collaborating to remove competing apps in each other's stores can also be challenged in court. The realities of software development are daunting. It often takes many years of work by countless individuals and budgets in the multiple thousands or even millions of dollars to ship an app. The libraries which the app relies upon are also unique in that an alternative may not be available, either for budgetary reasons around refactoring or for compliance with controversial laws like the DMCA. So an app's dependencies and licenses could be thought of as an ethnic identity for software because they can't be changed in practice. It's what they are. Main takeaways: 1. A unilateral ban of an app by a company can represent a power imbalance resulting in injustice because the guidelines the app must follow to regain entry are not tenable. In other words dependencies, licences and other nonfungible aspects of software may need to become protected classes. 2. Is the law being applied unequaly between VLC and other apps with LGPL dependencies, or with preferential treatment? 3. What recourse do developers have other than to sue? Will their case have merit? Are there financial barriers and opportunity costs to such actions? The realities of such recourse can impose such hardship on injured parties that their involuntary surrender represents a kind of injustice that favors moneyed parties. Keywords and avenues to pursue: unequal application preferential treatment protected class Would lawsuits against other companies along these lines reduce productivity in the tech sector by making it more difficult to do business, highlighting a need to reform legislation around this issue?

ChuckMcM 3y ago

Contextual note on VLC (and Videolan) their stance on software patents is well known[1] and not something people who either want software patents or are attacked by software patents will take on. [1] https://www.videolan.org/press/patents.html https://www.videolan.org/press/patents.html