9 ms·

Unity’s Open-Source Double Standard: the ban of VLC

541 points by cempaka 1y ago

mouse_ 1y ago
Big companies hate GPL No surprise here
- diggan 1y ago
  But they still use libraries under GPL themselves: > It gets better… Unity itself, both the Editor and the runtime (which means your shipped game) is already using LGPL dependencies! Unity is built on libraries such as Lame, libiconv, libwebsockets and websockify.js (at least). Full list of open-source Unity dependencies here. So what they hate seem to be "publishers and Unity users using GPL libraries", not using it themselves.
  - HenryBemis 1y ago
    Nothing wrong to use someone else's work to make money for yourself. Plenty wrong to use someone else's work to make money for others. Oversimplification I know.. but.. right? The Ferenghi would be proud of Unity!
    - bitmasher9 1y ago
      GPL/LGPL is more about treating users fairly than not making money. It’s just that most software companies exploit their users to various degrees.
    - matheusmoreira 1y ago
      Open source is just the transfer of property and capital from well meaning developers straight into the pockets of corporations and billionaires. Developers are well advised to always apply the AGPLv3 to everything they make. It's either AGPLv3 or all rights reserved, everything in between makes no sense. https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/ https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/ > To the Beggar Baron, open source's value is its free donation. > You would never stand on the street and offer to buy the wallets off people who are about to donate a few dollars to you. > That'd be stupid. They're giving you their money for free. Take it and run.
      - kragen 1y ago
        Your comment makes no sense: first it attacks “open source” with derogatory language, then it strongly recommends using a certain open-source license, and then it returns to attacking “open source” with derogatory language pasted from a clueless blog post by a plonker renowned for his clueless rants.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        It makes sense when you add the fact that 99% of open source is not AGPL. Criticizing "open source" is slight hyperbole.
        kragen 1y ago
        If there's something wrong with open source software as a class, that thing would almost certainly have to be wrong with the AGPL as well, since it's a central example of the class of open source licenses, and, contrary to your comment, one of the most popular ones. If it's an exception to the generalization, you need to explain why. So it isn't "slight hyperbole". It's utter incoherence.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        If everyone in a classroom but one makes the same mistake, it's not incoherent to say the class screwed up. And they half explained why AGPL is different, with the other half not being hard to infer. It's the only one that isn't donating code to huge companies, because they can't use it on their servers without sharing back. Give a tiny bit of benefit of the doubt that they were saying something coherent. Please. (Their other later comment says they considers AGPL to be in a different category from "open source", and even if that's wrong it actually makes the argument more coherent. They're explicitly criticizing open source licenses other than AGPL.) Also 1% was just a rough guess but this survey says I was exactly right: https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on-github-com/ https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on... If the number has changed in the last few years I'm open to updates.
        1y ago
  - kragen 1y ago
    Those libraries are under the LGPL, not the GPL, which is a huge difference in this context.
    - diggan 1y ago
      Ah, you're very right, I misread it somehow when I first came across it... Thanks for the correction!
      - kragen 1y ago
        It's an easy mistake to make!
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      I'm assuming mouse_ was including LGPL when they said GPL because otherwise their comment has nothing to do with the article.
      - kragen 1y ago
        They are very different licenses, so their comment has nothing to do with the article, which is what I was pointing out. Including the LGPL in a comment about the GPL makes as much sense as including Switzerland in a comment about Sweden. It's an easy mistake to make if you aren't very familiar with them, but it's still a mistake, and one which leads you to nonsensical conclusions if you don't correct it.
    - zorgmonkey 1y ago
      libVLC the library is LGPL licensed, VLC the application is GPL licensed. This plugin was of course just using libVLC so it being GPL was not the issue. As you said several other libraries unity uses are also LGPL licensed.
      - kragen 1y ago
        Thank you for the explanation! If I knew that, I had forgotten.
- tempfile 1y ago
  It's the LGPL, not the GPL. Huge difference.
- badgersnake 1y ago
  This is about the LGPL, which is a very different licence. I’ve not heard of it causing any problems. Glibc is licensed in this way, everything uses that.
  - kragen 1y ago
    The LGPL is a very different license, but glibc is not licensed under it, nor under the GPL.
    - actionfromafar 1y ago
      Someone should update this then. Isn't glibc the poster child for LGPL? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glibc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glibc
    - pmontra 1y ago
      It's got a number of different licenses for it's various components. LGPL 2.1 is among them. License file at https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob_plain;f=LICENSES;hb=HEAD https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob_plain;f=LICEN... Source at https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=summary https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=summary
      - kragen 1y ago
        I appreciate the correction. It looks like specifically the long double libm functions (things like extended precision square root and logarithm) and the DES implementation from SSLeay are licensed under the LGPL? That seems to conflict with badgersnake's link https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/#license https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/#license
    - badgersnake 1y ago
      That’s not what it says here: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/#license https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/#license
rawling 1y ago
[2024]?
- Alifatisk 1y ago
  (2024)
tokai 1y ago
No surprise here. Unity is such a horrible company.
adzm 1y ago
Interesting 5.10.4 does not seem to exist in the provider agreement? https://unity.com/legal/provider https://unity.com/legal/provider At one point this used to contain the clause: > 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. However this was removed sometime between December 3rd and December 12th according to the Wayback Machine.
- daveoc64 1y ago
  The post is over a year old (January 2024).
  - red_trumpet 1y ago
    The relevant email is even dated 31st of August 2023.
- axus 1y ago
  Looks like it was moved into the "Submission Guidelines 1.2.b" linked from 5.10.1: https://assetstore.unity.com/publishing/submission-guidelines https://assetstore.unity.com/publishing/submission-guideline...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
jdlyga 1y ago
Clearly, the legal team got bad information and made it part of their agreement. Like the article says, not only do tons of Unity assets use LGPL dependencies, but Unity uses LGPL assets themselves. Even shipped games created using Unity use LGPL assets. The intent was probably only to screen out GPL dependencies. For those who don't know, there's a huge difference between the GPL and LGPL. The LGPL is specifically designed to allow proprietary applications to link to open-source libraries without requiring the proprietary application’s source code to be released, provided certain conditions are met. This is particularly true when the LGPL-licensed library is used in a way that allows users to modify or replace it independently of the proprietary application. In contrast, the GNU General Public License (GPL) has stricter requirements. If your software incorporates GPL-licensed code, the entire derivative work must also be licensed under the GPL, which includes releasing the source code.
- zoobab 1y ago
  "but Unity uses LGPL assets themselves." So Unity will ban itself?
  - armada651 1y ago
    As the devil's advocate I'd like to argue that legal is probably more comfortable with Unity's own use of LGPL libraries, because they can ensure that Unity only links dynamically to those libraries. And given how critical these dependencies are to the engine, legal is willing to take the "risk" of allowing LGPL dependencies. The ban of LGPL in assets on the asset store is probably due to legal being concerned that someone would publish an asset that statically links to an LGPL library and that it would allow anyone to demand the source/object code of any Unity game that uses that asset. Legal probably sees it as too much effort to vet every asset to see if it links correctly to LGPL libraries and simply instituted a blanket ban to simplify enforcement.
- phkahler 1y ago
  >> The LGPL is specifically designed to allow proprietary applications to link to open-source libraries without requiring the proprietary application’s source code to be released, provided certain conditions are met. This is particularly true when the LGPL-licensed library is used in a way that allows users to modify or replace it independently of the proprietary application. That requires the library to be dynamically linked. Not sure if that's in play here.
ttoinou 1y ago
I’ve read a bit this post and the gitlab repo link but I still have no idea if it’s about having a VLC desktop player playing Unity assets / games, or a plugin for Unity to have a little VLC player inside the games.. or something else ?
- bayindirh 1y ago
  It's more like allowing VLC media player inside the games, maybe as a cutscene player, or playing media via a control which players can interact with inside the game. I believe the gem lies in this sentence: "allowing (you) to build your own media-player based on VLC technology in Unity-based games".
- Telemakhos 1y ago
  > The integration essentially was a bridge between the Unity game engine and the VLC multimedia engine, allowing to build your own media-player based on VLC technology in Unity-based games.
m3kw9 1y ago
They removed someone’s entire app and they say “sorry for the inconvenience”
zigzag312 1y ago
I find popularity of LGPL licenses a bit weird. Allows: - Commercial use of the software - Commercial use of the source code for projects that run on the company's servers or internally - Commercial use of the library is allowed if dynamically linked Blocks: - Commercial use of the source code for local apps that run on user's device - Commercial use of the library if statically linked for local apps that run on user's device I would expect a licence like MPL to be more popular than LGPL.
- vinceguidry 1y ago
  The GPLs don't concern themselves with commercial use. You can use GPL-licensed software for any application you wish, that is what software freedom means. It's just that if you do use copylefted free software, you must provide, free of charge, the source code of the software using it and any modifications made.
  - zigzag312 1y ago
    If you run things on the servers/cloud (excluding more recent AGPL) you don't need to provide any source code.
    - lupusreal 1y ago
      If this weren't the case, then every web server running linux would have to offer their users the source code to linux. Seems pretty silly, probably most software shouldn't be AGPL. AGPL is best used by projects that want to offer dual licensing for a fee, so they can get corporations to fund their development.
      - tmtvl 1y ago
        Most software probably should be AGPL licensed and its use is best for projects who want to protect what ought to be basic human rights which unfortunately aren't enshrined in law.
        1y ago
firtoz 1y ago
Unity's lawyers continue killing the company, not a big surprise there. I used to work there, proud of their technical accomplishments, ashamed of pretty much everything else.
- AIoverlord 1y ago
  [dead]
jasonlotito 1y ago
It is amazing to me the commentary confusing GPL and LGPL on this site. The misinformation being spread about the LGPL, or just assuming the LGPL is the same as the GPL is mind boggling. I can't be to surprised, I guess. GPL happens after the L, and of course, we know GPL "doesn't allow commercial applications" right? So that's all we need to discuss. Seriously, it's just four characters, and doesn't take long to look up without just assuming it's the same as the GPL. The argument "the lawyers saw GPL in LGPL and just made an assumption" is all the more plausible when you have people in the field who make the same mistake.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- kragen 1y ago
  The GPL does allow commercial applications. That's how we got Linux, nearly every embedded board support package ever, etc.
  - jasonlotito 1y ago
    I should have been more explicit by making it clear that part was sarcasm based on the comments I'm seeing elsewhere on this post. Apologies.
    - kragen 1y ago
      Sorry, I probably should have given the quotation marks more weight.
jillyboel 1y ago
Unity is actually permanently banning accounts for uploading a package that they decree has now been deprecated? What are they smoking?
- mcv 1y ago
  Yeah, it feels to me like there's some other reason they dislike VLC that they're not telling. Does it compete with their own media player or something? Did the creator of VLC date a Unity exec's ex?
  - BlueTemplar 1y ago
    VLC violates the DMCA, as well as includes patented MPEG style codecs, the end users of which (under a mostly USA-enforced legal framework ?) are supposed to pay royalties to patent owners, which I presume they almost never do (?) : https://wiki.videolan.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions/ https://wiki.videolan.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions/ So it might be possible that someone from the USA decided to strongarm Unity ?
- simoncion 1y ago
  > ...for uploading a package that they decree has now been deprecated? Unity appears to be using the term "deprecated" to mean "removed" or "deleted". This is a fucking stupid trend that I wish we would collectively push through, but we're not quite there yet. My interpretation of the memo from Unity is that they have deleted the VLC library from the Unity Store and have permanently banned the VLC group's Unity Store account for violation of the terms of the contract with Unity. Corpo jargon can be difficult to understand. (This might be the primary purpose of corpo jargon.)
mschuster91 1y ago
> 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. It's high time the EU clamps down on Unity as well and classifies them as a gatekeeper. This behavior is absolutely unhinged.
- BlueTemplar 1y ago
  Not just Unity, it's well past time the EU started enforcing the bans on US infocoms dating to a decade ago (Patriot Act => Snowden scandal => Schrems 2), since with it not being possible to presume any more that the USA is an ally, there's no reason to look away when they violate the fundamental rights of EU residents.
tobyhinloopen 1y ago
Unity again showing their hostility. Perma-banning developers for this reason is crazy.
- TheRealPomax 1y ago
  Not so much "again" as "before they doubled down and went full unity". This happened before the "per install" fees, in August of 2023.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
Xplan 1y ago
Not trying to play devils advocate, but it goes both ways. There are proprietary libraries in a lot of solutions too. The LGPL is under many distributed closed solutions that are sold for profit, so I think its WEEE bit of the kettle calling .. ya you get it. I don't want to turf war, but its more systemic than you probably think. In this case, its just the pry-bar used that the risk to blow up the entire community of developed software with open libraries. Tread lightly maybe.
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  What goes both ways? Everyone involved is fine with proprietary libraries being used. > The LGPL is under many distributed closed solutions that are sold for profit, so I think its WEEE bit of the kettle calling .. ya you get it. No, I don't get it. The LGPL allows that and they're happy with it. Where are you seeing hypocrisy?
  - Xplan 1y ago
    [flagged]
WesolyKubeczek 1y ago
I remember that VLC could not get into iOS App Store for the same reason, and the story about it was spun by everyone and their dog. Ffmpeg is there because it doesn’t have this kind of PR, and that’s it.
- Reason077 1y ago
  Different issue. The App Store controversy was because VLC was, back in 2011, licensed under the GPL. One of the VLC developers complained to Apple that the GPL license was incompatible with the App Store distribution model, so it was pulled. The engine parts of VLC were subsequently relicensed under LGPL-2.1, and the rest of the app under MPL. VLC has been back on the App Store since 2013.
Dwedit 1y ago
I don't know if VLC itself is even legal in countries that enforce software patents.
falcor84 1y ago
Previous discussion (Jan 2024): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38964972 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38964972
w4rh4wk5 1y ago
Please correct me if I am wrong here. From my understanding, using LGPL v2 code in console releases is fine since v2 does not have a tivoization clause (i.e. even if the end-user cannot re-link the program because the platform is locked down, that's still ok). However, websockify.js (and perhaps other dependencies) are LGPL v3, which means they cannot be included on a platform like the Nintendo Switch as the end-user cannot replace that component. Is Unity excluding such components on locked down platforms, or are they simply in violation of LGPL v3?
- hedora 1y ago
  No, you're right. Here's the best "article" I can find about this at the moment: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7387/what-is-the-difference-between-lgplv2-1-and-lgplv3 https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7387/what-is-... (copy paste from a dead link.) Apple has the same problem as unity. Try this on a mac: % bash --version GNU bash, version 3.2.57... Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. They can't upgrade bash past 3.2 (which is the last GPLv.2 release), so they're maintaining an ancient version themselves (it's old enough to smoke + vote + go to war in the US!), and they're trying to get users to switch to zsh. I looked at the LGPL 2.1, and the "or later" bit of the license is weird. Users can convert it to any version of GPL >= 2.1 at their discretion. However, the author of the library needs to specify LGPL (= any version), LGPL 2.1 (= exactly 2.1), or (recommended) "LGPL 2.1 or later" in a COPYING file. Unity says they "deprecated" LGPL code. That makes sense unless the code pins the LGPL version. Upstream LGPL vendors could rug-pull them, bash-style, at any moment. However, VLC's libraries are listed as "LGPL 2.1 only" here, so they explicitly claim they cannot rug pull (unless they jump to GPL3 -- that wouldn't be too surprising, since most of their stuff is AGPL, though it'd probably cause a fork): https://code.videolan.org/explore/projects/starred https://code.videolan.org/explore/projects/starred Except VLC didn't incorporate the license properly (COPYING and COPYING.lib don't say if they pin LGPL versions), and their README.md says: > libVLC, the engine is released under the LGPLv2 (or later) license. This allows embedding the engine in 3rd party applications, while letting them to be licensed under other licenses. https://code.videolan.org/videolan/vlc https://code.videolan.org/videolan/vlc So, Unity's probably right to be worried. "or later" includes v3, which is specifically incompatible with stuff like anti-cheat technology and consoles. However, my best guess is that Unity's worried about pissing off third parties that have patents on the algorithms VLC implements, and they use the LGPL thing as an excuse to avoid revealing the details of those private deals.
globalnode 1y ago
did your app threaten their advertising network or revenue perhaps?
minima 1y ago
[flagged]
minima 1y ago
Godot ftw. Unity is a bad business decision nowadays. If I had to pick something commercial I'd rather pick Epic Games who at least uses lawyers to fight Apple instead of f*ing with open source devs.
actinium226 1y ago
Can the link please be updated to note that this is from 2024?
99nala 1y ago
We moved away from Unity a few years ago when they introduced their updated licensing plan. I believe they backtracked on it almost immediately but we are still happy with our decision.
- bartvk 1y ago
  If not home-grown, where did you move to?
mystified5016 1y ago
Sure would be a shame if someone went through the unity store and reported every single LGPL asset to Unity legal.
NoahKAndrews 1y ago
Edit: nevermind, they are in fact affiliated, and most of the core VLC devs work at VideoLabs. I've kept the original comment below. This blog post links to the "VideoLab Store", hosted at https://videolabs.io https://videolabs.io, which prominently uses a logo extremely similar but not identical to the VLC (which stands for VideoLAN, not VideoLab) logo. Their homepage even goes as far as displaying "Hire the VLC team" as its headline. As far as I'm aware, VideoLab has nothing to do with the VideoLAN non-profit, and it very much seems like they are intentionally trying to mislead people into thinking that they are the developers of VLC.
- bionade24 1y ago
  Well, the author does have a link to the git forge of the VideoLAN project prominently displayed on the blog and also contributes to projects there: https://code.videolan.org/videolan/LibVLCSharp https://code.videolan.org/videolan/LibVLCSharp Additionally, Videolabs is listed at https://www.videolan.org/videolan/partners.html https://www.videolan.org/videolan/partners.html I guess the project is well-aware of the corporation.
  - NoahKAndrews 1y ago
    Just discovered some of that myself, I'm glad everything's on the up-and-up.
- paulbgd 1y ago
  The CTO is the president of the VideoLAN non-profit, so it seems accurate. Supposedly from their about page they’re the primary maintainers of vlc.
- jbk 1y ago
  (President of VideoLAN here). So far, VideoLabs is hiring most of the VLC core developers and those people are the main force of development of VLC. It's setup this way so that if the Videolabs company does not live forever, VLC stays forever free, and the non-profit lives. This is quite classic of open source projects, and in the case of VideoLAN, there are 3 or 4 companies doing consulting.
doctorpangloss 1y ago
Unfortunately for these guys, even if they have come up with the right solution - their own store - it doesn’t matter from the POV of commercial success. Right solutions are often NOT financially successful.
giancarlostoro 1y ago
Every time I think about using Unity they remind me why I'm right in preferring something fully open source that isn't gate keeping my use of it.
msie 1y ago
Ugh.
Fokamul 1y ago
Only madman would develop anything with Unity after last fiasco.
pnw 1y ago
I thought most dev stores have prohibitions against GPL and LGPL code like this? Epic's Fab distribution agreement says you can't use LGPL "unless you are merely dynamically linking a shared library" which is obviously impossible for them to enforce and not technically feasible on some gaming platforms. The Godot store seems to allow LGPLv3 licensed code which is interesting. Unity themselves using LGPL code isn't related because presumably they can control the way in which it is used, unlike a third party plug-in.
shmerl 1y ago
Another reason for people to ditch it and use Godot.
lyntier 1y ago
I really would like to use Unity for projects. I actually really like the editor, the API and the ability for me to set up a lot of tooling quite easily for people who are not tech-savvy in-editor. Unity just makes it so difficult for me every step of the way with hostile behaviour towards its users, the twenty different beta packages they are Totally Making Stable Next Year, I Swear, the _harshly_ degrading performance on even just empty projects.. I'm mainly using Godot now and it's nice but it just doesn't quite compare.
snickerbockers 1y ago
> games built with Unity depend on LGPL code by default (hello glibc!) So I'm being needlessly pedantic here and this doesn't necessarily go against the OP's point, but since I find this sort of stuff interesting I'd like to point out that glibc is actually GPL not LGPL. There is however an alternate license that applies to programs which link against glibc, with the intention being that the GPL prevents you from distributing glibc as part of a non-Free compiler. I'm not sure of how exactly this is expressed in the legalese but that was my understanding of it.
ErikBjare 1y ago
> 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. Not sure if I'd be petty enough to try, but reporting every other offender is likely to get some attention and (hopefully) a change in policy.

541 points by cempaka 1y ago

mouse_ 1y ago

Big companies hate GPL No surprise here

diggan 1y ago
But they still use libraries under GPL themselves: > It gets better… Unity itself, both the Editor and the runtime (which means your shipped game) is already using LGPL dependencies! Unity is built on libraries such as Lame, libiconv, libwebsockets and websockify.js (at least). Full list of open-source Unity dependencies here. So what they hate seem to be "publishers and Unity users using GPL libraries", not using it themselves.
- HenryBemis 1y ago
  Nothing wrong to use someone else's work to make money for yourself. Plenty wrong to use someone else's work to make money for others. Oversimplification I know.. but.. right? The Ferenghi would be proud of Unity!
  - bitmasher9 1y ago
    GPL/LGPL is more about treating users fairly than not making money. It’s just that most software companies exploit their users to various degrees.
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    Open source is just the transfer of property and capital from well meaning developers straight into the pockets of corporations and billionaires. Developers are well advised to always apply the AGPLv3 to everything they make. It's either AGPLv3 or all rights reserved, everything in between makes no sense. https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/ https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/ > To the Beggar Baron, open source's value is its free donation. > You would never stand on the street and offer to buy the wallets off people who are about to donate a few dollars to you. > That'd be stupid. They're giving you their money for free. Take it and run.
    - kragen 1y ago
      Your comment makes no sense: first it attacks “open source” with derogatory language, then it strongly recommends using a certain open-source license, and then it returns to attacking “open source” with derogatory language pasted from a clueless blog post by a plonker renowned for his clueless rants.
      - Dylan16807 1y ago
        It makes sense when you add the fact that 99% of open source is not AGPL. Criticizing "open source" is slight hyperbole.
        kragen 1y ago
        If there's something wrong with open source software as a class, that thing would almost certainly have to be wrong with the AGPL as well, since it's a central example of the class of open source licenses, and, contrary to your comment, one of the most popular ones. If it's an exception to the generalization, you need to explain why. So it isn't "slight hyperbole". It's utter incoherence.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        If everyone in a classroom but one makes the same mistake, it's not incoherent to say the class screwed up. And they half explained why AGPL is different, with the other half not being hard to infer. It's the only one that isn't donating code to huge companies, because they can't use it on their servers without sharing back. Give a tiny bit of benefit of the doubt that they were saying something coherent. Please. (Their other later comment says they considers AGPL to be in a different category from "open source", and even if that's wrong it actually makes the argument more coherent. They're explicitly criticizing open source licenses other than AGPL.) Also 1% was just a rough guess but this survey says I was exactly right: https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on-github-com/ https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on... If the number has changed in the last few years I'm open to updates.
      - 1y ago
- kragen 1y ago
  Those libraries are under the LGPL, not the GPL, which is a huge difference in this context.
  - diggan 1y ago
    Ah, you're very right, I misread it somehow when I first came across it... Thanks for the correction!
    - kragen 1y ago
      It's an easy mistake to make!
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    I'm assuming mouse_ was including LGPL when they said GPL because otherwise their comment has nothing to do with the article.
    - kragen 1y ago
      They are very different licenses, so their comment has nothing to do with the article, which is what I was pointing out. Including the LGPL in a comment about the GPL makes as much sense as including Switzerland in a comment about Sweden. It's an easy mistake to make if you aren't very familiar with them, but it's still a mistake, and one which leads you to nonsensical conclusions if you don't correct it.
  - zorgmonkey 1y ago
    libVLC the library is LGPL licensed, VLC the application is GPL licensed. This plugin was of course just using libVLC so it being GPL was not the issue. As you said several other libraries unity uses are also LGPL licensed.
    - kragen 1y ago
      Thank you for the explanation! If I knew that, I had forgotten.
tempfile 1y ago
It's the LGPL, not the GPL. Huge difference.
badgersnake 1y ago
This is about the LGPL, which is a very different licence. I’ve not heard of it causing any problems. Glibc is licensed in this way, everything uses that.
- kragen 1y ago
  The LGPL is a very different license, but glibc is not licensed under it, nor under the GPL.
  - actionfromafar 1y ago
    Someone should update this then. Isn't glibc the poster child for LGPL? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glibc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glibc
  - pmontra 1y ago
    It's got a number of different licenses for it's various components. LGPL 2.1 is among them. License file at https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob_plain;f=LICENSES;hb=HEAD https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob_plain;f=LICEN... Source at https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=summary https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=summary
    - kragen 1y ago
      I appreciate the correction. It looks like specifically the long double libm functions (things like extended precision square root and logarithm) and the DES implementation from SSLeay are licensed under the LGPL? That seems to conflict with badgersnake's link https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/#license https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/#license
  - badgersnake 1y ago
    That’s not what it says here: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/#license https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/#license

rawling 1y ago

[2024]?

Alifatisk 1y ago
(2024)

tokai 1y ago

No surprise here. Unity is such a horrible company.

adzm 1y ago

Interesting 5.10.4 does not seem to exist in the provider agreement? https://unity.com/legal/provider https://unity.com/legal/provider At one point this used to contain the clause: > 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. However this was removed sometime between December 3rd and December 12th according to the Wayback Machine.

daveoc64 1y ago
The post is over a year old (January 2024).
- red_trumpet 1y ago
  The relevant email is even dated 31st of August 2023.
axus 1y ago
Looks like it was moved into the "Submission Guidelines 1.2.b" linked from 5.10.1: https://assetstore.unity.com/publishing/submission-guidelines https://assetstore.unity.com/publishing/submission-guideline...
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

jdlyga 1y ago

Clearly, the legal team got bad information and made it part of their agreement. Like the article says, not only do tons of Unity assets use LGPL dependencies, but Unity uses LGPL assets themselves. Even shipped games created using Unity use LGPL assets. The intent was probably only to screen out GPL dependencies. For those who don't know, there's a huge difference between the GPL and LGPL. The LGPL is specifically designed to allow proprietary applications to link to open-source libraries without requiring the proprietary application’s source code to be released, provided certain conditions are met. This is particularly true when the LGPL-licensed library is used in a way that allows users to modify or replace it independently of the proprietary application. In contrast, the GNU General Public License (GPL) has stricter requirements. If your software incorporates GPL-licensed code, the entire derivative work must also be licensed under the GPL, which includes releasing the source code.

zoobab 1y ago
"but Unity uses LGPL assets themselves." So Unity will ban itself?
- armada651 1y ago
  As the devil's advocate I'd like to argue that legal is probably more comfortable with Unity's own use of LGPL libraries, because they can ensure that Unity only links dynamically to those libraries. And given how critical these dependencies are to the engine, legal is willing to take the "risk" of allowing LGPL dependencies. The ban of LGPL in assets on the asset store is probably due to legal being concerned that someone would publish an asset that statically links to an LGPL library and that it would allow anyone to demand the source/object code of any Unity game that uses that asset. Legal probably sees it as too much effort to vet every asset to see if it links correctly to LGPL libraries and simply instituted a blanket ban to simplify enforcement.
phkahler 1y ago
>> The LGPL is specifically designed to allow proprietary applications to link to open-source libraries without requiring the proprietary application’s source code to be released, provided certain conditions are met. This is particularly true when the LGPL-licensed library is used in a way that allows users to modify or replace it independently of the proprietary application. That requires the library to be dynamically linked. Not sure if that's in play here.

ttoinou 1y ago

I’ve read a bit this post and the gitlab repo link but I still have no idea if it’s about having a VLC desktop player playing Unity assets / games, or a plugin for Unity to have a little VLC player inside the games.. or something else ?

bayindirh 1y ago
It's more like allowing VLC media player inside the games, maybe as a cutscene player, or playing media via a control which players can interact with inside the game. I believe the gem lies in this sentence: "allowing (you) to build your own media-player based on VLC technology in Unity-based games".
Telemakhos 1y ago
> The integration essentially was a bridge between the Unity game engine and the VLC multimedia engine, allowing to build your own media-player based on VLC technology in Unity-based games.

m3kw9 1y ago

They removed someone’s entire app and they say “sorry for the inconvenience”

zigzag312 1y ago

I find popularity of LGPL licenses a bit weird. Allows: - Commercial use of the software - Commercial use of the source code for projects that run on the company's servers or internally - Commercial use of the library is allowed if dynamically linked Blocks: - Commercial use of the source code for local apps that run on user's device - Commercial use of the library if statically linked for local apps that run on user's device I would expect a licence like MPL to be more popular than LGPL.

vinceguidry 1y ago
The GPLs don't concern themselves with commercial use. You can use GPL-licensed software for any application you wish, that is what software freedom means. It's just that if you do use copylefted free software, you must provide, free of charge, the source code of the software using it and any modifications made.
- zigzag312 1y ago
  If you run things on the servers/cloud (excluding more recent AGPL) you don't need to provide any source code.
  - lupusreal 1y ago
    If this weren't the case, then every web server running linux would have to offer their users the source code to linux. Seems pretty silly, probably most software shouldn't be AGPL. AGPL is best used by projects that want to offer dual licensing for a fee, so they can get corporations to fund their development.
    - tmtvl 1y ago
      Most software probably should be AGPL licensed and its use is best for projects who want to protect what ought to be basic human rights which unfortunately aren't enshrined in law.
      - 1y ago

firtoz 1y ago

Unity's lawyers continue killing the company, not a big surprise there. I used to work there, proud of their technical accomplishments, ashamed of pretty much everything else.

AIoverlord 1y ago
[dead]

jasonlotito 1y ago

It is amazing to me the commentary confusing GPL and LGPL on this site. The misinformation being spread about the LGPL, or just assuming the LGPL is the same as the GPL is mind boggling. I can't be to surprised, I guess. GPL happens after the L, and of course, we know GPL "doesn't allow commercial applications" right? So that's all we need to discuss. Seriously, it's just four characters, and doesn't take long to look up without just assuming it's the same as the GPL. The argument "the lawyers saw GPL in LGPL and just made an assumption" is all the more plausible when you have people in the field who make the same mistake.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
kragen 1y ago
The GPL does allow commercial applications. That's how we got Linux, nearly every embedded board support package ever, etc.
- jasonlotito 1y ago
  I should have been more explicit by making it clear that part was sarcasm based on the comments I'm seeing elsewhere on this post. Apologies.
  - kragen 1y ago
    Sorry, I probably should have given the quotation marks more weight.

jillyboel 1y ago

Unity is actually permanently banning accounts for uploading a package that they decree has now been deprecated? What are they smoking?

mcv 1y ago
Yeah, it feels to me like there's some other reason they dislike VLC that they're not telling. Does it compete with their own media player or something? Did the creator of VLC date a Unity exec's ex?
- BlueTemplar 1y ago
  VLC violates the DMCA, as well as includes patented MPEG style codecs, the end users of which (under a mostly USA-enforced legal framework ?) are supposed to pay royalties to patent owners, which I presume they almost never do (?) : https://wiki.videolan.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions/ https://wiki.videolan.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions/ So it might be possible that someone from the USA decided to strongarm Unity ?
simoncion 1y ago
> ...for uploading a package that they decree has now been deprecated? Unity appears to be using the term "deprecated" to mean "removed" or "deleted". This is a fucking stupid trend that I wish we would collectively push through, but we're not quite there yet. My interpretation of the memo from Unity is that they have deleted the VLC library from the Unity Store and have permanently banned the VLC group's Unity Store account for violation of the terms of the contract with Unity. Corpo jargon can be difficult to understand. (This might be the primary purpose of corpo jargon.)

mschuster91 1y ago

> 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. It's high time the EU clamps down on Unity as well and classifies them as a gatekeeper. This behavior is absolutely unhinged.

BlueTemplar 1y ago
Not just Unity, it's well past time the EU started enforcing the bans on US infocoms dating to a decade ago (Patriot Act => Snowden scandal => Schrems 2), since with it not being possible to presume any more that the USA is an ally, there's no reason to look away when they violate the fundamental rights of EU residents.

tobyhinloopen 1y ago

Unity again showing their hostility. Perma-banning developers for this reason is crazy.

TheRealPomax 1y ago
Not so much "again" as "before they doubled down and went full unity". This happened before the "per install" fees, in August of 2023.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

Xplan 1y ago

Not trying to play devils advocate, but it goes both ways. There are proprietary libraries in a lot of solutions too. The LGPL is under many distributed closed solutions that are sold for profit, so I think its WEEE bit of the kettle calling .. ya you get it. I don't want to turf war, but its more systemic than you probably think. In this case, its just the pry-bar used that the risk to blow up the entire community of developed software with open libraries. Tread lightly maybe.

Dylan16807 1y ago
What goes both ways? Everyone involved is fine with proprietary libraries being used. > The LGPL is under many distributed closed solutions that are sold for profit, so I think its WEEE bit of the kettle calling .. ya you get it. No, I don't get it. The LGPL allows that and they're happy with it. Where are you seeing hypocrisy?
- Xplan 1y ago
  [flagged]

WesolyKubeczek 1y ago

I remember that VLC could not get into iOS App Store for the same reason, and the story about it was spun by everyone and their dog. Ffmpeg is there because it doesn’t have this kind of PR, and that’s it.

Reason077 1y ago
Different issue. The App Store controversy was because VLC was, back in 2011, licensed under the GPL. One of the VLC developers complained to Apple that the GPL license was incompatible with the App Store distribution model, so it was pulled. The engine parts of VLC were subsequently relicensed under LGPL-2.1, and the rest of the app under MPL. VLC has been back on the App Store since 2013.

Dwedit 1y ago

I don't know if VLC itself is even legal in countries that enforce software patents.

falcor84 1y ago

Previous discussion (Jan 2024): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38964972 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38964972

w4rh4wk5 1y ago

Please correct me if I am wrong here. From my understanding, using LGPL v2 code in console releases is fine since v2 does not have a tivoization clause (i.e. even if the end-user cannot re-link the program because the platform is locked down, that's still ok). However, websockify.js (and perhaps other dependencies) are LGPL v3, which means they cannot be included on a platform like the Nintendo Switch as the end-user cannot replace that component. Is Unity excluding such components on locked down platforms, or are they simply in violation of LGPL v3?

hedora 1y ago
No, you're right. Here's the best "article" I can find about this at the moment: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7387/what-is-the-difference-between-lgplv2-1-and-lgplv3 https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7387/what-is-... (copy paste from a dead link.) Apple has the same problem as unity. Try this on a mac: % bash --version GNU bash, version 3.2.57... Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. They can't upgrade bash past 3.2 (which is the last GPLv.2 release), so they're maintaining an ancient version themselves (it's old enough to smoke + vote + go to war in the US!), and they're trying to get users to switch to zsh. I looked at the LGPL 2.1, and the "or later" bit of the license is weird. Users can convert it to any version of GPL >= 2.1 at their discretion. However, the author of the library needs to specify LGPL (= any version), LGPL 2.1 (= exactly 2.1), or (recommended) "LGPL 2.1 or later" in a COPYING file. Unity says they "deprecated" LGPL code. That makes sense unless the code pins the LGPL version. Upstream LGPL vendors could rug-pull them, bash-style, at any moment. However, VLC's libraries are listed as "LGPL 2.1 only" here, so they explicitly claim they cannot rug pull (unless they jump to GPL3 -- that wouldn't be too surprising, since most of their stuff is AGPL, though it'd probably cause a fork): https://code.videolan.org/explore/projects/starred https://code.videolan.org/explore/projects/starred Except VLC didn't incorporate the license properly (COPYING and COPYING.lib don't say if they pin LGPL versions), and their README.md says: > libVLC, the engine is released under the LGPLv2 (or later) license. This allows embedding the engine in 3rd party applications, while letting them to be licensed under other licenses. https://code.videolan.org/videolan/vlc https://code.videolan.org/videolan/vlc So, Unity's probably right to be worried. "or later" includes v3, which is specifically incompatible with stuff like anti-cheat technology and consoles. However, my best guess is that Unity's worried about pissing off third parties that have patents on the algorithms VLC implements, and they use the LGPL thing as an excuse to avoid revealing the details of those private deals.

globalnode 1y ago

did your app threaten their advertising network or revenue perhaps?

minima 1y ago

[flagged]

minima 1y ago

Godot ftw. Unity is a bad business decision nowadays. If I had to pick something commercial I'd rather pick Epic Games who at least uses lawyers to fight Apple instead of f*ing with open source devs.

actinium226 1y ago

Can the link please be updated to note that this is from 2024?

99nala 1y ago

We moved away from Unity a few years ago when they introduced their updated licensing plan. I believe they backtracked on it almost immediately but we are still happy with our decision.

bartvk 1y ago
If not home-grown, where did you move to?

mystified5016 1y ago

Sure would be a shame if someone went through the unity store and reported every single LGPL asset to Unity legal.

NoahKAndrews 1y ago

Edit: nevermind, they are in fact affiliated, and most of the core VLC devs work at VideoLabs. I've kept the original comment below. This blog post links to the "VideoLab Store", hosted at https://videolabs.io https://videolabs.io, which prominently uses a logo extremely similar but not identical to the VLC (which stands for VideoLAN, not VideoLab) logo. Their homepage even goes as far as displaying "Hire the VLC team" as its headline. As far as I'm aware, VideoLab has nothing to do with the VideoLAN non-profit, and it very much seems like they are intentionally trying to mislead people into thinking that they are the developers of VLC.

bionade24 1y ago
Well, the author does have a link to the git forge of the VideoLAN project prominently displayed on the blog and also contributes to projects there: https://code.videolan.org/videolan/LibVLCSharp https://code.videolan.org/videolan/LibVLCSharp Additionally, Videolabs is listed at https://www.videolan.org/videolan/partners.html https://www.videolan.org/videolan/partners.html I guess the project is well-aware of the corporation.
- NoahKAndrews 1y ago
  Just discovered some of that myself, I'm glad everything's on the up-and-up.
paulbgd 1y ago
The CTO is the president of the VideoLAN non-profit, so it seems accurate. Supposedly from their about page they’re the primary maintainers of vlc.
jbk 1y ago
(President of VideoLAN here). So far, VideoLabs is hiring most of the VLC core developers and those people are the main force of development of VLC. It's setup this way so that if the Videolabs company does not live forever, VLC stays forever free, and the non-profit lives. This is quite classic of open source projects, and in the case of VideoLAN, there are 3 or 4 companies doing consulting.

doctorpangloss 1y ago

Unfortunately for these guys, even if they have come up with the right solution - their own store - it doesn’t matter from the POV of commercial success. Right solutions are often NOT financially successful.

giancarlostoro 1y ago

Every time I think about using Unity they remind me why I'm right in preferring something fully open source that isn't gate keeping my use of it.

msie 1y ago

Ugh.

Fokamul 1y ago

Only madman would develop anything with Unity after last fiasco.

pnw 1y ago

I thought most dev stores have prohibitions against GPL and LGPL code like this? Epic's Fab distribution agreement says you can't use LGPL "unless you are merely dynamically linking a shared library" which is obviously impossible for them to enforce and not technically feasible on some gaming platforms. The Godot store seems to allow LGPLv3 licensed code which is interesting. Unity themselves using LGPL code isn't related because presumably they can control the way in which it is used, unlike a third party plug-in.

shmerl 1y ago

Another reason for people to ditch it and use Godot.

lyntier 1y ago

I really would like to use Unity for projects. I actually really like the editor, the API and the ability for me to set up a lot of tooling quite easily for people who are not tech-savvy in-editor. Unity just makes it so difficult for me every step of the way with hostile behaviour towards its users, the twenty different beta packages they are Totally Making Stable Next Year, I Swear, the _harshly_ degrading performance on even just empty projects.. I'm mainly using Godot now and it's nice but it just doesn't quite compare.

snickerbockers 1y ago

> games built with Unity depend on LGPL code by default (hello glibc!) So I'm being needlessly pedantic here and this doesn't necessarily go against the OP's point, but since I find this sort of stuff interesting I'd like to point out that glibc is actually GPL not LGPL. There is however an alternate license that applies to programs which link against glibc, with the intention being that the GPL prevents you from distributing glibc as part of a non-Free compiler. I'm not sure of how exactly this is expressed in the legalese but that was my understanding of it.

ErikBjare 1y ago

> 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. Not sure if I'd be petty enough to try, but reporting every other offender is likely to get some attention and (hopefully) a change in policy.