Comment on Unity bans VLC from Unity Store.
admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 10 months agoWhy is it bullshit?
You are only required to give source code for changes to that part for LGPL code. So only the library requires that.
Other game engines supply thier source code. If Unity wants any hope of redemption they should let us inspect wtf actually does on our computers.
You CAN access the source code, but it’s for corporate/enterprise partners. afaik
Charging for access is actually fine under L/GPL but after that you’re then free to distribute at your own price. U imagine Unity heavily control how you use and distribute your modified engine (nonfree).
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.
That puts things into perspective, thanks!
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.
Can you point to the section of the LGPL that describes what you’re claiming?
I thought the point of the LGPL was to allow this sort of usage without requiring the release of source code. It’s an extension of the GPL to remove those requirements isn’t it?
I admit this is totally not my area, but couldn’t you say that about literally any online source that sold software from Steam to the Apple App Store?
RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Unity let me go earlier this week, so I’m really not in the mood to defend them, but this is correct. I’m on the Unity hate train but this is pretty cut and dry.
admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 10 months ago
Sad to hear it, hope you’ll find something else soon.
RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Thankfully I’m in Canada where Collective Layoffs are heavily protected, and I have a generous package to keep me afloat until I find the right job.
It is a sad week for tech because not everyone has these protections.
grue@lemmy.world 10 months ago
No, it’s not correct. Unity’s management might think that’s how the LGPL works, but they’re wrong.
RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 10 months ago
The fact that they prefer to not do something at all instead of going through the hassle of doing something properly has always been a thing at Unity. It’s correct that it is for business reasons and not necessarily logical ones.