8 ms·

VLC Core is LGPL

251 points by freeman478 14y ago

freeman478 14y ago
This mean that VLC could be back on the AppStore.
- ars 14y ago
  Which AppStore? Isn't it already available on Google's AppStore?
  - nicholassmith 14y ago
    iTunes App Store, GPL is incompatible so it was pulled by request, I've still got a copy on my iPad though.
    - hedwall 14y ago
      Don't think so, considering the limitations as to how many devices you may download the application to. If i am not mistaken was it five.
      - arrrg 14y ago
        There is no limit.
      - jbk 14y ago
        This limitation is gone.
    - emehrkay 14y ago
      I've downloaded VLC and XBMC when they were both available in the App Store, hod do I re-download? They dont appear in the "purchased" section
      - nicholassmith 14y ago
        Ir they don't show I'm the purchased section they might be gone forever, I kept a backup of the IPA file.
- Argorak 14y ago
  Be aware that the LGPL still has some pitfalls in store here: http://multinc.com/2009/08/24/compatibility-between-the-iphone-app-store-and-the-lgpl/ http://multinc.com/2009/08/24/compatibility-between-the-ipho...
  - jbk 14y ago
    An analysis of 2009 on the App Store is totally obsolete, knowing that the ToS change every couple of months.
yarrel 14y ago
That's a shame.
- mikecsh 14y ago
  Why is it a shame?
  - endgame 14y ago
    Because while every piece of free software is a wound against proprietary software, the more liberal licences like LGPL and the BSD/MIT-style licences are a wound against free software: proprietary interests can take free code without giving anything back.
    - VMG 14y ago
      With the MIT license, proprietary interests have the option of giving something back without having to give all back. Which very often happens.
    - olgeni 14y ago
      > proprietary interests can take free code without giving anything back. As long as the author is ok with that, and proprietary interests are happy with merging their own changes on each upstream release, I don't see any wounds. Also, sometimes it's better for proprietary interests to lift (for example) a working TCP/IP implementation, rather than implementing their own poor thing and put it on the 'net for everybody else to deal with.
      - icebraining 14y ago
        Also, sometimes it's better for proprietary interests to lift (for example) a working TCP/IP implementation, rather than implementing their own poor thing and put it on the 'net for everybody else to deal with. rms agrees with you: http://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3 http://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3
    - _pferreir_ 14y ago
anthonyb 14y ago
This is modules, not core. Core was last year: http://git.videolan.org/?p=vlc.git;a=commit;h=36ab287e77e9df059f261ed1cfb13fc4674182ec http://git.videolan.org/?p=vlc.git;a=commit;h=36ab287e77e9df...
codebeaker 14y ago
Congratulations to Jean-Baptiste, that's been an incredible arduous piece of work for him.
- jbk 14y ago
  Thanks a lot :)
josephlord 14y ago
The really interesting story is the how(linked from main article): Part 2 (probably the more interesting): http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2012/How-to-properly-relicense-a-large-open-source-project-part-2 http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2012/How-to-properly-relice... Part 1: http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2012/How-to-properly-relicense-a-large-open-source-project http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2012/How-to-properly-relice...
- jbk 14y ago
  Part 3 is coming soon, about FAQ and numbers, but part2 is probably the most interesting one, indeed.
Hupo 14y ago
Good for them, I guess. Though VLC's popularity still makes me pretty sad and how better video players like MPC-HC (on Windows) and mplayer/mplayer2 (on everything else) are much more unknown in comparison. I mean, most of VLC's development outside of the streaming stuff has been about playing catch-up with these two for years. But well, the unfortunate truth is that many people are bad at computers and if they manage to mess their system playback up, VLC can certainly feel like a "rescue" with its stand-alone nature. But well, I doubt most people care about high-quality media files to begin with, and VLC sure plays those 700MB XviD AVIs and so on just fine...
- Nursie 14y ago
  VLC has been able to handle pretty much anything you throw at it for many years and always been available across diverse platforms. It's an awesome product. Why so negative?
  - Hupo 14y ago
    Because better and equally free and open source alternatives have existed for about as long yet remain more unknown. VLC sure plays a lot of things, but it's a a real jack of all trades and master of none. I certainly understand it's appeal, but there's certainly better yet equally simple solutions out there as well (eg. CCCP for Windows, various MPlayer2 bundles for OS X like MPlayer.app). Of course, the "downside" of DirectShow-based playback solutions on Windows is that if a user has managed to fuck up their DirectShow beyond recognition, it's going to need a lot of unfucking before you can do anything about it, whereas VLC in its stand-alone nature can play stuff even in a situation like this. Though you could also always get a SMPlayer2 & mplayer2 bundle in such a situation too...
    - irahul 14y ago
      What does other players do better than vlc?
      - Hupo 14y ago
Nursie 14y ago
On a reading of how it was done, I guess if anyone had contributed stuff under the GPL and particularly objected to LGPL relicensing the could probably still make arguments about derivative works... Interestingly there's no mention of dissenting opinions from anywhere. Not that I'm implying that this move is a bad thing, I would just expect if you ask a large enough group of developers any question about licensing you would get a variety of arguments cropping up.
- pm215 14y ago
  The commit message includes in its list of modules which are not converted: - iOS audio output and video display, because author refuses the license change - Mono, Headphone and Dolby, because author refuses the license change So there is some dissenting opinion.
  - jbk 14y ago
    2 authors out of 230 is not that much... And for example, the author of headphone objected only on Headphone and Dolby, but allowed the rest of his code to be changed.
    - Nursie 14y ago
      That's quite remarkable, given how contrary and argumentative developers often seem to be!
      - jbk 14y ago
        Yep. I was surprised too :)
  - Florin_Andrei 14y ago
    Rip out that stuff, replace it anew.
- jbk 14y ago
  > On a reading of how it was done, I guess if anyone had contributed stuff under the GPL and particularly objected to LGPL relicensing the could probably still make arguments about derivative works... Read part 1 and 3 > Interestingly there's no mention of dissenting opinions from anywhere. Not that I'm implying that this move is a bad thing, I would just expect if you ask a large enough group of developers any question about licensing you would get a variety of arguments cropping up. Because the vast majority of VLC developers want their code to be used, not fight over licenses.
rangibaby 14y ago
Does this mean VLC will be back on the App Store? I remember it being pulled due to a contributor (who around ~2010 worked for Nokia) complaining to Apple.
- jbk 14y ago
  Possibly, yes. But so far, iOS aout and vout are not LGPL.
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    You're saying that iOS about and bout must be LGPL first before there can be a VLC app in the iOS App Store? That goes against my idea of the point of LGPL, but I could well be wrong. I thought I could interface non-LGPL code with it.
    - jbk 14y ago
      The audio output and video output are still GPL, so far. Maybe this was not clear enough.
      - stcredzero 14y ago
        Oh, you mean in VLC lib itself. BTW, will there be a "static link exception" for the iOS App Store?
        jbk 14y ago
        I am not sure to understand what you mean, to be honest.
        stcredzero 14y ago
        Look for "Static Library Exception" http://multinc.com/2009/08/24/compatibility-between-the-iphone-app-store-and-the-lgpl/ http://multinc.com/2009/08/24/compatibility-between-the-ipho...
comice 14y ago
So every contributor essentially gets to vote on the license change, and their vote is proportional to the contribution they made (because if they vote no, their contributed code has to be rewritten). I think I quite like it, but only because there is an option to replace their code if they vote no (which admittedly may be very technically difficult). No single contributor can truly veto the license change. Clearly has it's downsides though.
- jbk 14y ago
  I did delete some code, and rewrote some. But not for many people.
  - comice 14y ago
    Was there any single person with enough of a contribution that if they'd said no, you'd have abandoned the idea of a license change?
    - jbk 14y ago
      Yes, a lot of them. VLC contributions have mainly been done by 2 dozens of persons. If any of Rémi Denis-Courmont, Laurent Aimar, Gildas Bazin, Pierre d'Herbemont, Rafaël Carré (or me) would have disagreed, I would have stopped right away.
- keeperofdakeys 14y ago
  Imagine trying to do this for something like the linux kernel, it would be nearly impossible.
jbk 14y ago
This is my website :) (I did not expect that to come on HN, to be honest) Anyway, the title is, of course, misleading. VLC core, named libVLCcore is LGPL since last year (I did it too in december) and the wrapper for 3rd party applications libVLC was relicensed too at the same time. This is different, since most modules of VLC are now LGPL. We speak about codecs, demuxers, format parsers, protocol accesses, filter and outputs. And those modules are way more important in terms of contributors and lines of code than the VLC core. In fact, we speak here of 230 people with around 300,000 lines of code, compared to 80 people and 80,000 lines of code for the VLC core. Of course, from a higher-level point of view, all those playback modules are part of the "core of VLC" :)
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  Very nice, so will we see a new VLC app for iOS? I've been carefully syncing and copying my copy to insure it stays on my iPad.
- pretoriusB 14y ago
  How does that play with the iOS VLC port? The one that a VLC contributor working for Nokia (Rémi Denis-Courmont) managed to take down, for not being in compliance with GPL?
  - jbk 14y ago
    Rémi Denis-Courmont is the biggest contributor of VLC, so far, and he pushed forward the LGPL move... :)
    - pretoriusB 14y ago
      But, since, LGPL enables the iOS port as an option again, what made RD-C change his mind? A cynic would ask if it has anything to do with not working for Nokia anymore...
      - jbk 14y ago
        And a cynic would be wrong. The LGPL move started some time ago and Rémi was still at Nokia and he was pushing for it.
beagle3 14y ago
Wait, doesn't the LGPL require users to be able to substitute their own compiled version? How does the LGPL relicense solve the Apple AppStore problem everyone is talking about? Apple may approve LGPLd code, but as far as I can tell, they still do not comply with it under their current distribution system. edit: wrote iOS instead of LGPL in the first line, thanks simonh
- simonh 14y ago
  I think you mean LGPL where you say iOS in the first sentence. I can't answer your question, but just point out that huge chunks of iOS itself are LGPL already, such as webkit, and the LGPL version of ffmpeg is already widely used. There has been some speculation in the past that because iOS mandates static linking that this is a problem for using LGPL libraries, but I fall into the 'linking creates a compilation, not a derived work' camp and if the compilation interpretation is correct then static linking isn't a problem. But every time I dig into LGPL interpretation and linking issues, eventually my head starts hurting and I give up.
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    1. Apple distributes source to the LGPL pieces, so that is not an issue for them. 2. The rest of what you said doesn't make much sense to me. I'm not clear on what distinction you are trying to make. There are those that believe that the question of linking is mostly irrelevant to whether something is a derivative work. Lawrence Rosen is the canonical example of folks in this camp. But even in that camp, static linking may be a problem, it just depends on what is being done. So it's not really true that "static linking isn't a problem".
  - beagle3 14y ago
    Well, stop reading the LGPL interpretation, and start reading the LGPL itself - it is written in English (rather than legalese) and is very clear on most subjects. Specifically, it cares that the end user can "swap out" the LGPLd code for their modified version, which is not available in the iOS AppStore regardless of compilation vs. derived work interpretation (a distinction without difference if I understand it correctly).
chj 14y ago
Every time a GPL related post comes up, it always reminds me of the sqlite project, and how the world could be simpler without those weird licenses. http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html
- Nursie 14y ago
  That's all well and good, but the GPL is set up to address problems that the authors saw, that public domain licensing does not - mainly that they thought users should have the right to obtain the source to the stuff running on their machines. Others like it because it's a way of saying 'you can use this stuff I've put a lot of effort into, but only if we get to see the enhancements you make'. I know that neither of these things is a priority for some developers, who prefer things to be used as widely as possible and as unrestricted as possible, but that's not for everyone.
- bad_user 14y ago
  In general you cannot place your work under public domain because in many countries (including in the U.S. with some exceptions) the work must enter the public domain by itself after the copyrights expired. The copyright term also differs of course from country to country. Even worse, there are jurisdictions in which the public domain is not recognized.
  - koko775 14y ago
    Did you even read the link? > Even though SQLite is in the public domain and does not require a license, some users want to obtain a license anyway. Some reasons for obtaining a license include: > > * You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the public domain. > * You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the right of an author to dedicate their work to the public domain. > * You want to hold a tangible legal document as evidence that you have the legal right to use and distribute SQLite. > * Your legal department tells you that you have to purchase a license. > > If you feel like you really have to purchase a license for SQLite, Hwaci, the company that employs the architect and principal developers of SQLite, will sell you one.
sanxiyn 14y ago
See also this post on Mozilla relicensing: http://blog.gerv.net/2006/03/relicensing_complete/ http://blog.gerv.net/2006/03/relicensing_complete/
sanxiyn 14y ago
Sun RPC should be mentioned here. The long, sordid tale of Sun RPC, abbreviated somewhat, to protect the guily and the irresponsible http://spot.livejournal.com/315383.html http://spot.livejournal.com/315383.html GNU/Linux - finally it's Free software http://webmink.com/2010/08/30/gnulinux-finally-its-free-software/ http://webmink.com/2010/08/30/gnulinux-finally-its-free-soft... The Saga of Sun RPC http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/08/27/sun-rpc.html http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/08/27/sun-rpc.html
crististm 14y ago
Lots of efforts that otherwise could have been used on something more productive. GPL was just fine. No VLC on AppStore - I could live without. Hey, I can live without Apple too but this is not about me.
bcantrill 14y ago
Congratulations to JB and team on completing this Herculean task! I had the pleasure of meeting JB when he and I shared a ride from the airport in Porto Alegre for this year's FISL.[1] When he asked me what I was going to be presenting on, I (not yet knowing anything about JB's work) had some trepidation in responding: my presentation was on corporate open source anti-patterns[2] -- and one of my conclusions was that the GPL has essentially outlived its usefulness. Fearing that this was a very controversial conclusion, I approached it gingerly in my conversation with JB; needless to say I was very relieved to learn that he and the VLC team had come to broadly similar conclusions -- and surprised that they felt so strongly that they had taken on the arduous task of relicensing. Congratulations again to JB and team; I'm sure that they join the ranks of us who never want to engage in a(nother) licensing discussion as long as we live! [1] http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2012/08/01/post-revolutionary-open-source/ http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2012/08/01/post-revolutionary-op... [2] http://smartos.org/2012/07/27/corporate-open-source-anti-patterns-doing-it-wrong/ http://smartos.org/2012/07/27/corporate-open-source-anti-pat...
- jbk 14y ago
  Thanks :)
- georgeorwell 14y ago
  From your second link, why do you think the licenses of DTrace and ZFS have limited their Linux popularity? Aren't their licenses compatible with (read: convertible to) the GPL?
  - throwaway54-762 14y ago
    At least with ZFS, no: "Porting ZFS to Linux is complicated by the fact that the GNU General Public License, which governs the Linux kernel, is incompatible with the Sun CDDL under which ZFS is distributed."[0] See also this reasoning from the native ZFS linux kernel module port: "In a nutshell, the issue is that the Linux kernel which is licensed under the GNU General Public License is incompatible with ZFS which is licensed under the Sun CDDL. While both the GPL and CDDL are open source licenses their terms are such that it is impossible to simultaneously satisfy both licenses. This means that a single derived work of the Linux kernel and ZFS cannot be legally distributed."[1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Linux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Linux [1]: http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIssue http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIssue

VLC Core is LGPL

251 points by freeman478 14y ago

freeman478 14y ago

This mean that VLC could be back on the AppStore.

ars 14y ago
Which AppStore? Isn't it already available on Google's AppStore?
- nicholassmith 14y ago
  iTunes App Store, GPL is incompatible so it was pulled by request, I've still got a copy on my iPad though.
  - hedwall 14y ago
    Don't think so, considering the limitations as to how many devices you may download the application to. If i am not mistaken was it five.
    - arrrg 14y ago
      There is no limit.
    - jbk 14y ago
      This limitation is gone.
  - emehrkay 14y ago
    I've downloaded VLC and XBMC when they were both available in the App Store, hod do I re-download? They dont appear in the "purchased" section
    - nicholassmith 14y ago
      Ir they don't show I'm the purchased section they might be gone forever, I kept a backup of the IPA file.
Argorak 14y ago
Be aware that the LGPL still has some pitfalls in store here: http://multinc.com/2009/08/24/compatibility-between-the-iphone-app-store-and-the-lgpl/ http://multinc.com/2009/08/24/compatibility-between-the-ipho...
- jbk 14y ago
  An analysis of 2009 on the App Store is totally obsolete, knowing that the ToS change every couple of months.

yarrel 14y ago

That's a shame.

mikecsh 14y ago
Why is it a shame?
- endgame 14y ago
  Because while every piece of free software is a wound against proprietary software, the more liberal licences like LGPL and the BSD/MIT-style licences are a wound against free software: proprietary interests can take free code without giving anything back.
  - VMG 14y ago
    With the MIT license, proprietary interests have the option of giving something back without having to give all back. Which very often happens.
  - olgeni 14y ago
    > proprietary interests can take free code without giving anything back. As long as the author is ok with that, and proprietary interests are happy with merging their own changes on each upstream release, I don't see any wounds. Also, sometimes it's better for proprietary interests to lift (for example) a working TCP/IP implementation, rather than implementing their own poor thing and put it on the 'net for everybody else to deal with.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      Also, sometimes it's better for proprietary interests to lift (for example) a working TCP/IP implementation, rather than implementing their own poor thing and put it on the 'net for everybody else to deal with. rms agrees with you: http://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3 http://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3
  - _pferreir_ 14y ago

anthonyb 14y ago

This is modules, not core. Core was last year: http://git.videolan.org/?p=vlc.git;a=commit;h=36ab287e77e9df059f261ed1cfb13fc4674182ec http://git.videolan.org/?p=vlc.git;a=commit;h=36ab287e77e9df...

codebeaker 14y ago

Congratulations to Jean-Baptiste, that's been an incredible arduous piece of work for him.

jbk 14y ago
Thanks a lot :)

josephlord 14y ago

The really interesting story is the how(linked from main article): Part 2 (probably the more interesting): http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2012/How-to-properly-relicense-a-large-open-source-project-part-2 http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2012/How-to-properly-relice... Part 1: http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2012/How-to-properly-relicense-a-large-open-source-project http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2012/How-to-properly-relice...

jbk 14y ago
Part 3 is coming soon, about FAQ and numbers, but part2 is probably the most interesting one, indeed.

Hupo 14y ago

Good for them, I guess. Though VLC's popularity still makes me pretty sad and how better video players like MPC-HC (on Windows) and mplayer/mplayer2 (on everything else) are much more unknown in comparison. I mean, most of VLC's development outside of the streaming stuff has been about playing catch-up with these two for years. But well, the unfortunate truth is that many people are bad at computers and if they manage to mess their system playback up, VLC can certainly feel like a "rescue" with its stand-alone nature. But well, I doubt most people care about high-quality media files to begin with, and VLC sure plays those 700MB XviD AVIs and so on just fine...

Nursie 14y ago
VLC has been able to handle pretty much anything you throw at it for many years and always been available across diverse platforms. It's an awesome product. Why so negative?
- Hupo 14y ago
  Because better and equally free and open source alternatives have existed for about as long yet remain more unknown. VLC sure plays a lot of things, but it's a a real jack of all trades and master of none. I certainly understand it's appeal, but there's certainly better yet equally simple solutions out there as well (eg. CCCP for Windows, various MPlayer2 bundles for OS X like MPlayer.app). Of course, the "downside" of DirectShow-based playback solutions on Windows is that if a user has managed to fuck up their DirectShow beyond recognition, it's going to need a lot of unfucking before you can do anything about it, whereas VLC in its stand-alone nature can play stuff even in a situation like this. Though you could also always get a SMPlayer2 & mplayer2 bundle in such a situation too...
  - irahul 14y ago
    What does other players do better than vlc?
    - Hupo 14y ago

Nursie 14y ago

On a reading of how it was done, I guess if anyone had contributed stuff under the GPL and particularly objected to LGPL relicensing the could probably still make arguments about derivative works... Interestingly there's no mention of dissenting opinions from anywhere. Not that I'm implying that this move is a bad thing, I would just expect if you ask a large enough group of developers any question about licensing you would get a variety of arguments cropping up.

pm215 14y ago
The commit message includes in its list of modules which are not converted: - iOS audio output and video display, because author refuses the license change - Mono, Headphone and Dolby, because author refuses the license change So there is some dissenting opinion.
- jbk 14y ago
  2 authors out of 230 is not that much... And for example, the author of headphone objected only on Headphone and Dolby, but allowed the rest of his code to be changed.
  - Nursie 14y ago
    That's quite remarkable, given how contrary and argumentative developers often seem to be!
    - jbk 14y ago
      Yep. I was surprised too :)
- Florin_Andrei 14y ago
  Rip out that stuff, replace it anew.
jbk 14y ago
> On a reading of how it was done, I guess if anyone had contributed stuff under the GPL and particularly objected to LGPL relicensing the could probably still make arguments about derivative works... Read part 1 and 3 > Interestingly there's no mention of dissenting opinions from anywhere. Not that I'm implying that this move is a bad thing, I would just expect if you ask a large enough group of developers any question about licensing you would get a variety of arguments cropping up. Because the vast majority of VLC developers want their code to be used, not fight over licenses.

rangibaby 14y ago

Does this mean VLC will be back on the App Store? I remember it being pulled due to a contributor (who around ~2010 worked for Nokia) complaining to Apple.

jbk 14y ago
Possibly, yes. But so far, iOS aout and vout are not LGPL.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  You're saying that iOS about and bout must be LGPL first before there can be a VLC app in the iOS App Store? That goes against my idea of the point of LGPL, but I could well be wrong. I thought I could interface non-LGPL code with it.
  - jbk 14y ago
    The audio output and video output are still GPL, so far. Maybe this was not clear enough.
    - stcredzero 14y ago
      Oh, you mean in VLC lib itself. BTW, will there be a "static link exception" for the iOS App Store?
      - jbk 14y ago
        I am not sure to understand what you mean, to be honest.
        stcredzero 14y ago
        Look for "Static Library Exception" http://multinc.com/2009/08/24/compatibility-between-the-iphone-app-store-and-the-lgpl/ http://multinc.com/2009/08/24/compatibility-between-the-ipho...

comice 14y ago

So every contributor essentially gets to vote on the license change, and their vote is proportional to the contribution they made (because if they vote no, their contributed code has to be rewritten). I think I quite like it, but only because there is an option to replace their code if they vote no (which admittedly may be very technically difficult). No single contributor can truly veto the license change. Clearly has it's downsides though.

jbk 14y ago
I did delete some code, and rewrote some. But not for many people.
- comice 14y ago
  Was there any single person with enough of a contribution that if they'd said no, you'd have abandoned the idea of a license change?
  - jbk 14y ago
    Yes, a lot of them. VLC contributions have mainly been done by 2 dozens of persons. If any of Rémi Denis-Courmont, Laurent Aimar, Gildas Bazin, Pierre d'Herbemont, Rafaël Carré (or me) would have disagreed, I would have stopped right away.
keeperofdakeys 14y ago
Imagine trying to do this for something like the linux kernel, it would be nearly impossible.

jbk 14y ago

This is my website :) (I did not expect that to come on HN, to be honest) Anyway, the title is, of course, misleading. VLC core, named libVLCcore is LGPL since last year (I did it too in december) and the wrapper for 3rd party applications libVLC was relicensed too at the same time. This is different, since most modules of VLC are now LGPL. We speak about codecs, demuxers, format parsers, protocol accesses, filter and outputs. And those modules are way more important in terms of contributors and lines of code than the VLC core. In fact, we speak here of 230 people with around 300,000 lines of code, compared to 80 people and 80,000 lines of code for the VLC core. Of course, from a higher-level point of view, all those playback modules are part of the "core of VLC" :)

ChuckMcM 14y ago
Very nice, so will we see a new VLC app for iOS? I've been carefully syncing and copying my copy to insure it stays on my iPad.
pretoriusB 14y ago
How does that play with the iOS VLC port? The one that a VLC contributor working for Nokia (Rémi Denis-Courmont) managed to take down, for not being in compliance with GPL?
- jbk 14y ago
  Rémi Denis-Courmont is the biggest contributor of VLC, so far, and he pushed forward the LGPL move... :)
  - pretoriusB 14y ago
    But, since, LGPL enables the iOS port as an option again, what made RD-C change his mind? A cynic would ask if it has anything to do with not working for Nokia anymore...
    - jbk 14y ago
      And a cynic would be wrong. The LGPL move started some time ago and Rémi was still at Nokia and he was pushing for it.

beagle3 14y ago

Wait, doesn't the LGPL require users to be able to substitute their own compiled version? How does the LGPL relicense solve the Apple AppStore problem everyone is talking about? Apple may approve LGPLd code, but as far as I can tell, they still do not comply with it under their current distribution system. edit: wrote iOS instead of LGPL in the first line, thanks simonh

simonh 14y ago
I think you mean LGPL where you say iOS in the first sentence. I can't answer your question, but just point out that huge chunks of iOS itself are LGPL already, such as webkit, and the LGPL version of ffmpeg is already widely used. There has been some speculation in the past that because iOS mandates static linking that this is a problem for using LGPL libraries, but I fall into the 'linking creates a compilation, not a derived work' camp and if the compilation interpretation is correct then static linking isn't a problem. But every time I dig into LGPL interpretation and linking issues, eventually my head starts hurting and I give up.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  1. Apple distributes source to the LGPL pieces, so that is not an issue for them. 2. The rest of what you said doesn't make much sense to me. I'm not clear on what distinction you are trying to make. There are those that believe that the question of linking is mostly irrelevant to whether something is a derivative work. Lawrence Rosen is the canonical example of folks in this camp. But even in that camp, static linking may be a problem, it just depends on what is being done. So it's not really true that "static linking isn't a problem".
- beagle3 14y ago
  Well, stop reading the LGPL interpretation, and start reading the LGPL itself - it is written in English (rather than legalese) and is very clear on most subjects. Specifically, it cares that the end user can "swap out" the LGPLd code for their modified version, which is not available in the iOS AppStore regardless of compilation vs. derived work interpretation (a distinction without difference if I understand it correctly).

chj 14y ago

Every time a GPL related post comes up, it always reminds me of the sqlite project, and how the world could be simpler without those weird licenses. http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html

Nursie 14y ago
That's all well and good, but the GPL is set up to address problems that the authors saw, that public domain licensing does not - mainly that they thought users should have the right to obtain the source to the stuff running on their machines. Others like it because it's a way of saying 'you can use this stuff I've put a lot of effort into, but only if we get to see the enhancements you make'. I know that neither of these things is a priority for some developers, who prefer things to be used as widely as possible and as unrestricted as possible, but that's not for everyone.
bad_user 14y ago
In general you cannot place your work under public domain because in many countries (including in the U.S. with some exceptions) the work must enter the public domain by itself after the copyrights expired. The copyright term also differs of course from country to country. Even worse, there are jurisdictions in which the public domain is not recognized.
- koko775 14y ago
  Did you even read the link? > Even though SQLite is in the public domain and does not require a license, some users want to obtain a license anyway. Some reasons for obtaining a license include: > > * You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the public domain. > * You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the right of an author to dedicate their work to the public domain. > * You want to hold a tangible legal document as evidence that you have the legal right to use and distribute SQLite. > * Your legal department tells you that you have to purchase a license. > > If you feel like you really have to purchase a license for SQLite, Hwaci, the company that employs the architect and principal developers of SQLite, will sell you one.

sanxiyn 14y ago

See also this post on Mozilla relicensing: http://blog.gerv.net/2006/03/relicensing_complete/ http://blog.gerv.net/2006/03/relicensing_complete/

sanxiyn 14y ago

Sun RPC should be mentioned here. The long, sordid tale of Sun RPC, abbreviated somewhat, to protect the guily and the irresponsible http://spot.livejournal.com/315383.html http://spot.livejournal.com/315383.html GNU/Linux - finally it's Free software http://webmink.com/2010/08/30/gnulinux-finally-its-free-software/ http://webmink.com/2010/08/30/gnulinux-finally-its-free-soft... The Saga of Sun RPC http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/08/27/sun-rpc.html http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/08/27/sun-rpc.html

crististm 14y ago

Lots of efforts that otherwise could have been used on something more productive. GPL was just fine. No VLC on AppStore - I could live without. Hey, I can live without Apple too but this is not about me.

bcantrill 14y ago

Congratulations to JB and team on completing this Herculean task! I had the pleasure of meeting JB when he and I shared a ride from the airport in Porto Alegre for this year's FISL.[1] When he asked me what I was going to be presenting on, I (not yet knowing anything about JB's work) had some trepidation in responding: my presentation was on corporate open source anti-patterns[2] -- and one of my conclusions was that the GPL has essentially outlived its usefulness. Fearing that this was a very controversial conclusion, I approached it gingerly in my conversation with JB; needless to say I was very relieved to learn that he and the VLC team had come to broadly similar conclusions -- and surprised that they felt so strongly that they had taken on the arduous task of relicensing. Congratulations again to JB and team; I'm sure that they join the ranks of us who never want to engage in a(nother) licensing discussion as long as we live! [1] http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2012/08/01/post-revolutionary-open-source/ http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2012/08/01/post-revolutionary-op... [2] http://smartos.org/2012/07/27/corporate-open-source-anti-patterns-doing-it-wrong/ http://smartos.org/2012/07/27/corporate-open-source-anti-pat...

jbk 14y ago
Thanks :)
georgeorwell 14y ago
From your second link, why do you think the licenses of DTrace and ZFS have limited their Linux popularity? Aren't their licenses compatible with (read: convertible to) the GPL?
- throwaway54-762 14y ago
  At least with ZFS, no: "Porting ZFS to Linux is complicated by the fact that the GNU General Public License, which governs the Linux kernel, is incompatible with the Sun CDDL under which ZFS is distributed."[0] See also this reasoning from the native ZFS linux kernel module port: "In a nutshell, the issue is that the Linux kernel which is licensed under the GNU General Public License is incompatible with ZFS which is licensed under the Sun CDDL. While both the GPL and CDDL are open source licenses their terms are such that it is impossible to simultaneously satisfy both licenses. This means that a single derived work of the Linux kernel and ZFS cannot be legally distributed."[1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Linux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Linux [1]: http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIssue http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIssue