Unity's Open-Source Double Standard: The Ban of VLC

When I originally wrote the LGPL (v1, back around 1991) we could not imagine anything like an App Store or signed binaries. Dynamic linking provided an easy way for users to upgrade the library code.<p>Since the user doesn’t have the freedom to update the libs on ios etc I don’t see how you could deploy LGPL code on those platforms; since one of the points of using unity is its cross-platform support, that suggests you’d have to find another library unless you were only deploying on real OSes.<p>But is that Unity’s problem?

It might be time for a mutually-assured destruction lobby&#x2F;guild.<p>In this case, when a company like Unity bans this VLC project for using LGPL software, the guild would open individual lawsuits against them to remove each of the other projects using LGPL code, based on various legal precedents around discrimination. Which would make it untenable to single out projects like this.<p>This is a negative or low-vibration idea, I realize. Which is actually my point. If a policy causes one to go down these anger&#x2F;fear&#x2F;ego-based rabbit holes, then something is suspect with it. This is the litmus test I use.<p>Somewhere along the way, we lost the wisdom or will to understand the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. And we sold our souls when we allowed wealth and power to override our discernment of right and wrong.<p>If Unity wants to step into its power, it can start by abandoning knee-jerk policies designed to protect itself from liability against stupid laws. It can start saving a war chest to go to bat against patent&#x2F;copyright&#x2F;trademark trolls for the rest of us and protect the projects within its ecosystem instead of throwing its contributors under the bus. It can set an example for other large companies to follow so that we can eventually reform the system.<p>But whatever all this malarky is has got to stop.<p>I really want to like Unity for how it aligns with my goals as a shareware game developer in my formative years and a lot of other reasons, but they make it very hard to do so.

Wouldn&#x27;t be surprised if Unity is developing their own multimedia engine they want to sell. Shitty practices like this is what makes me want to get into politics.

&gt; <i>The packages &quot;VLC for Unity (Android)&quot;, &quot;VLC for Unity (UWP)&quot;, &quot;VLC for Unity (Windows)&quot; have been deprecated.</i><p>This is not deprecation. This is removal and banning.

What&#x27;s the rational for not allowing LGPL code on the unity store? It makes no sense for the ban imho (tho i m not very familiar with unity store&#x27;s model so i might just be missing something).

(Disclaimer: President of VideoLAN here)<p>Just a few remarks: VLC-Unity plugin is fully open source, and anyone skilled enough can build it themself.<p>We&#x27;ve tried for months to discuss with Unity and it was a nightmare. We&#x27;ve had discussions for years with Apple AppStore, Google Play store, and Windows Stores (including Windows Mobile + UWP). It&#x27;s always challenging, but Unity was a headache an order of magnitude bigger: no answers, 3 different answers contradicting each other, and plain bad faith.<p>De facto, they use LGPL and open source to build their platform, but we&#x27;re not allowed to have open source on the store? Not even LGPL with a layer of a different license? Why us? Why not the other people doing it?<p>Very frustrating.<p>So, yes, because some people need to buy support or licenses, even if everything is open source (don&#x27;t want to build themselves, purchase department that needs a support contract, etc...), they need to have a small store. This is different from what we see usually, but there is a need, so this is a small store for that.<p>For most of HN users, you should just build it yourself. You should be skilled enough for that :)

The LGPL gives end users the right to replace the LGPLed part with a modified version, and users presumably cannot alter parts of a downloaded Unity app. So it does seem that software using an LGPL library cannot be distributed on Unity or most any modern app store and still be in compliance with the LGPL.<p>It&#x27;s not viral, but it does give users rights that aren&#x27;t natural under the app store distribution model.

Not a video game developer - but I wonder if it&#x27;d be a good call for videolan to make a vlc plugin for godot? It&#x27;s still gaining momentum and (afaik, could be wrong) have the same thing as unity with a inbuilt media stack but it&#x27;s fairly limited.

Steam also does not allow GPL licensed code: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;partner.steamgames.com&#x2F;doc&#x2F;sdk&#x2F;uploading&#x2F;distributing_opensource" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;partner.steamgames.com&#x2F;doc&#x2F;sdk&#x2F;uploading&#x2F;distributin...</a><p>Edit: if you want to link against SteamWorks

They still can publish their assets outside of the Unity store. Users can download them and install them in Unity. But I agree it&#x27;s not a nice move from behalf of Unity.

App stores (or generally moderation) is a complex thing to get right.<p>Once you have humans in the loop, you have bias. Not even humans can follow the set ambiguous guidelines and the appeals process is mostly broken.<p>AI can somewhat help but language models are just that - language models - they don&#x27;t have any deep understanding.<p>Fundamentally I believe moderation will always be broken until we get algorithms capable of understanding the deeper meaning of things and apply them uniformly.

Why would Unity do this?

There is no issue with the LGPL. The lesser GPL does not propagate to the whole.<p>weird.

&gt; Unity basically told us we were not welcome back to their Store, ever. Even if we were to remove all LGPL code from the Unity package.<p>Why not include screenshots of these emails too?

Didn&#x27;t Unity have its own included media stack?

Contextual note on VLC (and Videolan) their stance on software patents is well known[1] and not something people who either want software patents or are attacked by software patents will take on.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.videolan.org&#x2F;press&#x2F;patents.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.videolan.org&#x2F;press&#x2F;patents.html</a>

The ban of &quot;VLC for Unity integration&quot;.

Can anyone explain what looks like complete idiocy here? Why would the LGPL be so &quot;radioactive&quot; from Unity&#x27;s perspective?<p>Looks like yet another faux pas by a company bent on self-destruction.

How does unity itself comply with the LGPL if it uses LGPL code?<p>The blog post also says all games made with Unity depend on LGPL code. How do they comply?<p>I&#x27;m so glad I generally don&#x27;t have to think about this kind of stuff day to day.

Software business ha never been too polite to competition.

Fuck unity. Every time people have fun some aspiring jerk with an MBA comes to ruin the party for everyone involved.

It sounds like this article tells only part of the story. Why would Unity ban VLC? I wonder if they have given any official comments about this.

Look, I&#x27;m frustrated with Unity as a company too, but a hit piece as a product announcement?

I find the negative reception here confusing. Seems to me they got removed from a marketplace, so they launched their own. They put the announcement into an article about the thing that motivated what&#x27;s being announced. That is generally what you do, because otherwise the article would leave you with the impression that you have no option going forward, and a follow-up would reach fewer people. Just doesn&#x27;t make sense.<p>Also, I&#x27;m no Unity expert, but C# integrations generally use PInvoke right? It&#x27;s the most dynamic of linking, there&#x27;s really no inherent reason LGPL libs can&#x27;t be used in Unity games. At worst, Unity should make sure you know your obligations, but I don&#x27;t understand the necessity of a blanket ban. I&#x27;d be very surprised if VideoLAN, a well-respected organization that has been doing open source work for a very long time, had such a fundamental misunderstanding of the software licenses they use.<p>Either way, a request: please stop using &quot;clickbait&quot; to describe literally anything you don&#x27;t like. The article is chiefly about their ban, even the announcement is. By all means, critique whatever you want, but that&#x27;s simply not what clickbait is. Clickbait is more like &quot;actually we didn&#x27;t get banned, But...&quot;

This comment section is so interesting. It&#x27;s a great example of the value of PR; that it&#x27;s not what you do that&#x27;s important, but how you frame it.<p>How VLC <i>should</i> have framed this post:<p>1. Our plug-in got banned from the Unity Store for what we believe are bad reasons. Other high-profile plug-ins with LGPL code are still there.<p>2. To ensure that our users can still get our plug-in, we set up our own store which sells the plug-in.<p>3. Also the store has all these other services you can buy.<p>But they omitted the second part. And the simple act of not explicitly connecting the store to the plug-in ban through enough PR speak seems to have been enough to make people here characterize this blog post as simply an ad for their store.

From the article:<p><i>After months of slow back-and-forth over email trying to find a compromise, including offering to exclude LGPL code from the assets, Unity basically told us we were not welcome back to their Store, ever. Even if we were to remove all LGPL code from the Unity package.</i><p><i>Where it gets fun is that there are currently hundreds if not thousands of Unity assets that include LGPL dependencies (such as FFmpeg) in the Store right now. Enforcement is seemingly totally random, unless you get reported by someone, apparently.</i>

Weird pivot in the middle of the article where all of a sudden they&#x27;re promoting a product. Is this an ad disguised as a clickbait article?

That makes the name Unity very ironic right now.

ff