Unity’s Open-Source Double Standard: the ban of VLC
lemmy.world
VLC for Unity integration

Everyone can agree on VLC being the best video player, right? Game developers can agree on it too, since it is a great utility for playing multimedia in games, and/or have a video player included. However, disaster struck; Unity has now banned VLC from the Unity Store, seemingly due to it being under the LGPL license which is a “Violation of section 5.10.4 of the Provider agreement.” This is a contridiction however. According to Martin Finkel in the linked article, “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).” Unity is swiftly coming to it’s demise.

Edit: link to Videolan Blog Post: https://mfkl.github.io/2024/01/10/unity-double-oss-standards.html

  • rockSlayer@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    1 year ago

    Unity uses the LGPL for parts of their own products. The GPL in most cases only requires that derivative work must also be shipped with the same license. The source code from providers doesn’t have to be distributed by unity, it has to be distributed by the provider. In this case that would be videoLAN, which has all their source code on GitHub. You can read the text of the LGPL here, and this is VideoLAN’s post about the situation.

    • nybble41@programming.devEnglish
      11·
      1 year ago

      The GPL in most cases only requires that derivative work must also be shipped with the same license. The source code from providers doesn’t have to be distributed by unity, it has to be distributed by the provider.

      This is incorrect. The distributor of derivative works in binary form is responsible for providing the source code. They can refer to a server operated by a third party, but if that third party stops providing the source code the distributor remains obligated to ensure that it is still available. The only exception is for binaries which were originally received with a written offer of source code, where the offer can be passed on as-is, but that only applies for “occasional and non-commercial” distribution which wouldn’t work here.

        • nybble41@programming.devEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          Section 6 of the GPLv3, which the LGPLv3 includes by reference as one of the required distribution terms in paragraph 4.d.0:

          Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.

          (emphasis added) There is the alternative of following 4.d.1 instead, but that’s only if the application links against a shared library already present on the user’s computer system—it couldn’t be distributed with the program.

          GPLv3 section six offers five alternative methods of satisfying the obligation to provide source code. The first (6.a) applies only to physical distribution and must include source code with the physical media. The second (6.b) also requires physical distribution plus a written offer to provide the source code to anyone possessing the object code. The third (6.c) is the one I mentioned that applies only “occasionally and noncommercially” for those who received a written offer themselves under the previous clause. The fourth option (6.d) allows for the source to be provided through a network server:

          If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

          The fifth and final alternative (6.e) pertains to object code provided through P2P distribution, with the same requirements as the fourth method for the source code.

          • rockSlayer@lemmy.worldEnglish
            11·
            1 year ago

            Section A in section 3 of the LGPL is the out here for unity:

            a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the object code that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License.

            As long as there is prominent notice with the distribution of the plugin, unity doesn’t need to distribute the source code.

            • nybble41@programming.devEnglish
              1·
              11 months ago

              You mean “3. Object Code Incorporating Material from Library Header Files.”? That section 3? I think they’re using a bit more than just header files. Section 4 “Combined Works” is the one that applies here.

              Also even if section 3 did apply they’d need to follow 3.b as well as 3.a and include the full text of both the GPL and the LGPL.