3 ms·

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 u

by 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.
    - matheusmoreira 1y ago
      Free software and open source software are not the same. AGPLv3 is not an open source license, it is the strongest copyleft free software license available at this point in time. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html And it's hard to disagree with the clueless guy when what he says is happening keeps happening. https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178803129602500 https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178803129602500 https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178805704888726 https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178805704888726 https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/10341#comment:4 https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/10341#comment:4
  - pabs3 1y ago
    The AGPLv3 is pretty easy for the corporations to comply with, they just have to either use the unmodified code, or give their users access to the modified code. The money will still go to them even with AGPLv3. You have to go to non-FOSS licenses if you want to change where the money goes, but even that won't help, because if you get popular enough they will just use their giant amount of devs to re-implement your stuff and then beat you at marketing.
    - matheusmoreira 1y ago
      > The AGPLv3 is pretty easy for the corporations to comply with > they just have to either use the unmodified code, or give their users access to the modified code If it's so easy, then why don't they? Why do they treat it as legal kryptonite? > You have to go to non-FOSS licenses if you want to change where the money goes I agree with you. That's why I said "AGPLv3 or all rights reserved". I don't necessarily want to change where the money goes though. It's about having the power to do whatever you want as the user of the software and especially as the owner of the computer that's running it. AGPLv3 is simply the license that allows us to give away software while retaining the most possible leverage. Open source licenses just give it all away for literally nothing. > but even that won't help, because if you get popular enough they will just use their giant amount of devs to re-implement your stuff and then beat you at marketing That's okay. Spending one's own time and money on something is not exploitative in any way. They could also negotiate exceptions to the GPL with the copyright holders. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html
      - pabs3 1y ago
        Probably cautious lawyers, maybe cargo-culting, hard to tell. Some more discussion of why they don't in this LWN thread: https://lwn.net/Articles/1019686/ https://lwn.net/Articles/1019686/ FTR, AGPLv3 is considered an Open Source license, perhaps you meant permissive/pushover licenses when you said "Open source licenses just give it all away for literally nothing". Also, permissive licenses have conditions too, although they are easy to comply with, violations of them are still quite common, as they are for GPL-family licenses. Deliberately going out of your way to put a smaller company out of business seems like shitty behavior to me. I also wonder about the anti-trust angle; Big Tech using their oligopoly in the developer labour market to kill startups that could become competitors. I never really bought the idea that selling exceptions is ethical, probably better to downgrade to LGPL instead.
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.

by diggan 1y ago

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.
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    Free software and open source software are not the same. AGPLv3 is not an open source license, it is the strongest copyleft free software license available at this point in time. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html And it's hard to disagree with the clueless guy when what he says is happening keeps happening. https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178803129602500 https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178803129602500 https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178805704888726 https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178805704888726 https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/10341#comment:4 https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/10341#comment:4
- pabs3 1y ago
  The AGPLv3 is pretty easy for the corporations to comply with, they just have to either use the unmodified code, or give their users access to the modified code. The money will still go to them even with AGPLv3. You have to go to non-FOSS licenses if you want to change where the money goes, but even that won't help, because if you get popular enough they will just use their giant amount of devs to re-implement your stuff and then beat you at marketing.
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    > The AGPLv3 is pretty easy for the corporations to comply with > they just have to either use the unmodified code, or give their users access to the modified code If it's so easy, then why don't they? Why do they treat it as legal kryptonite? > You have to go to non-FOSS licenses if you want to change where the money goes I agree with you. That's why I said "AGPLv3 or all rights reserved". I don't necessarily want to change where the money goes though. It's about having the power to do whatever you want as the user of the software and especially as the owner of the computer that's running it. AGPLv3 is simply the license that allows us to give away software while retaining the most possible leverage. Open source licenses just give it all away for literally nothing. > but even that won't help, because if you get popular enough they will just use their giant amount of devs to re-implement your stuff and then beat you at marketing That's okay. Spending one's own time and money on something is not exploitative in any way. They could also negotiate exceptions to the GPL with the copyright holders. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html
    - pabs3 1y ago
      Probably cautious lawyers, maybe cargo-culting, hard to tell. Some more discussion of why they don't in this LWN thread: https://lwn.net/Articles/1019686/ https://lwn.net/Articles/1019686/ FTR, AGPLv3 is considered an Open Source license, perhaps you meant permissive/pushover licenses when you said "Open source licenses just give it all away for literally nothing". Also, permissive licenses have conditions too, although they are easy to comply with, violations of them are still quite common, as they are for GPL-family licenses. Deliberately going out of your way to put a smaller company out of business seems like shitty behavior to me. I also wonder about the anti-trust angle; Big Tech using their oligopoly in the developer labour market to kill startups that could become competitors. I never really bought the idea that selling exceptions is ethical, probably better to downgrade to LGPL instead.

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.