The author criticizes Unity's decision to ban the VLC library from its Asset Store while simultaneously utilizing and profiting from other open-source projects like LLVM and Mono. They argue that Unity's justification for the ban, citing VLC's GPLv2 license incompatibility with their terms of service, is hypocritical. The author points out that Unity's own products benefit from GPLv2-licensed software, suggesting the ban is motivated by competitive concerns, specifically the potential disruption VLC's inclusion could have on their own video player offering. This selective enforcement of licensing terms, according to the author, reveals a double standard regarding open source and demonstrates a prioritization of profit over community contributions.
The blog post by Mathias Panzenböck, titled "Unity's Open-Source Double Standard: the ban of VLC," meticulously dissects what the author perceives as a hypocritical stance by Unity Technologies regarding open-source software. The core argument revolves around Unity's recent decision to prohibit the integration of the popular media player VLC within their game engine, citing licensing incompatibilities specifically with the LGPLv2.1. Panzenböck argues that this justification rings hollow given Unity's own simultaneous utilization and distribution of other software components, notably FreeType, also governed by the LGPLv2.1.
The author painstakingly outlines the technical details of how Unity incorporates FreeType, demonstrating that the dynamic linking employed mirrors the very method developers would use to integrate VLC. This parallel implementation, according to Panzenböck, exposes a blatant inconsistency in Unity's licensing enforcement. If dynamic linking under LGPLv2.1 is permissible for FreeType within Unity, the author posits, then the same principle should logically apply to VLC. The prohibition of VLC, therefore, appears less a matter of genuine licensing concerns and more a strategically motivated decision, possibly influenced by competitive interests or undisclosed internal policies.
The post further delves into the nuanced complexities of open-source licensing, specifically addressing the common misconceptions surrounding dynamic linking and the LGPL. Panzenböck clarifies that dynamic linking, in the context of LGPLv2.1, generally does allow for the inclusion of the library without necessitating the release of the entire application's source code. He meticulously refutes any potential counterarguments regarding the supposed "viral" nature of LGPL in this scenario, emphasizing the freedom afforded by the license for proprietary software to link dynamically with LGPL-licensed libraries.
Panzenböck reinforces his argument by providing a comprehensive breakdown of the legal text within the LGPLv2.1, offering a clear interpretation of the pertinent clauses related to linking and distribution. He emphasizes the permissibility of distributing combined works, where proprietary software utilizes LGPL components, as long as specific conditions regarding source code availability and modification rights are met. These conditions, he argues, are not violated by the hypothetical integration of VLC within Unity projects, further solidifying his claim of a double standard.
The author concludes by expressing disappointment in Unity's actions, characterizing them as detrimental to the broader open-source community. He suggests that this selective enforcement of licensing agreements undermines the principles of openness and collaboration that underpin the open-source movement. By singling out VLC, Panzenböck argues, Unity not only limits developers' choices but also creates a chilling effect on the integration of other open-source components, potentially hindering innovation within the game development ecosystem. He calls for greater transparency and consistency from Unity in their handling of open-source software integration.
Summary of Comments ( 64 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43914832
The Hacker News comments discuss Unity's seemingly contradictory stance on open source, banning VLC while simultaneously using open-source software themselves. Several commenters point out the potential hypocrisy, questioning whether Unity truly understands open-source licensing. Some suggest the ban might stem from VLC's GPL license, which could obligate Unity to open-source their own engine if they bundled it. Others speculate about practical reasons for the ban, like avoiding potential legal issues arising from VLC's broad codec support, or preventing users from easily ripping game assets. A few defend Unity, arguing that they are within their rights to control their platform and that the GPL's implications can be challenging for businesses to navigate. There's also discussion about the lack of clarity from Unity regarding their reasoning, which fuels speculation and distrust within the community. Finally, some commenters express concern over the precedent this sets, worrying that other closed-source platforms might adopt similar restrictions on open-source software.
The Hacker News post discussing Unity's ban of VLC has a moderate number of comments, mostly revolving around licensing issues, community perceptions of Unity, and the technical rationale behind the ban.
Several commenters delve into the complexities of licensing, particularly the LGPLv2.1 used by VLC and Unity's claim that static linking of VLC violates this license. Some argue that Unity's interpretation is incorrect, citing the allowance for static linking under specific conditions within the LGPL. Others point out the ambiguity surrounding static linking in LGPL and the potential for differing legal interpretations. A recurring theme in these discussions is the difficulty of navigating open-source licenses and the potential for misunderstandings or misapplications, especially in complex software projects.
A significant portion of the commentary reflects a negative sentiment towards Unity. Commenters express skepticism about Unity's justification for the ban, suggesting ulterior motives such as promoting their own video playback solutions or exerting control over the ecosystem. Some view this incident as part of a larger pattern of behavior by Unity, citing previous controversies and expressing concern about the company's commitment to open-source principles. This sentiment contributes to a broader discussion about the tension between open-source ideals and the business realities of companies utilizing open-source software.
A few comments address the technical aspects of the ban, discussing the implications of statically linking LGPL-licensed libraries. These comments touch upon topics like the potential for GPL "infection," the challenges of complying with LGPL requirements in closed-source projects, and the practical considerations of distributing software that incorporates open-source components.
Some commenters offer alternative explanations for the ban, speculating about potential patent issues or conflicts with Unity's internal libraries. However, these suggestions are generally presented as possibilities rather than definitive explanations.
Finally, a few comments focus on the practical impact of the ban for developers using both Unity and VLC. These commenters express frustration and concern about the disruption to their workflows and the lack of clear alternatives.
Overall, the comments paint a picture of a complex situation with technical, legal, and business implications. While the discussion acknowledges the complexities of open-source licensing, the dominant sentiment leans towards skepticism about Unity's motives and concern about their relationship with the open-source community.