3 ms·

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

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.

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.