Technology

59402 readers

2667 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

982

Unity bans VLC from Unity Store. (lemmy.world)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by Gemini24601@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

128 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago (11 children)

No it won't. This is 5.10.4 of the Unity Provider agreement, it's total bullshit.

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.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 16 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (10 children)

Why is it bullshit? AFAIK, Unity wouldn't be able to comply with LGPL without supplying their own source code, so then this would be the only logical outcome.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (3 children)

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.dev 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Can you point to the section of the LGPL that describes what you're claiming?

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)