Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

VLC Core is LGPL

jbkempf.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 149 posts

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#61

Post by icebraining »

pretoriusB wrote: post #46
endgame wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because while every piece of free software is a wound against proprietary software, the more liberal licences like LGPL and the BSD/MIT-style licences are a wound against free software: proprietary interests can take free code without giving anything back.

> Because while every piece of free software is a wound against proprietary software, the more liberal licences like LGPL and the BSD/MIT-style licences are a wound against free software Some of like like our proprietary software very much, thank you. I wouldn't want to live in a world where there would not have been a Photoshop, a Premiere or a Logic Pro but only their open source "alternatives". > proprietary inter…

Some of like like our proprietary software very much, thank you. I wouldn't want to live in a world where there would not have been a Photoshop, a Premiere or a Logic Pro but only their open source "alternatives".

Pro or against proprietary software, it's a fallacy to assume that in a world where Photoshop didn't exist, its alternatives would be the same. Having a copy of PS for a relatively cheap price is a great incentive not to devote more resources to alternatives.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#62

Post by icebraining »

endgame wrote: post #17
mikecsh wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it a shame?

Because while every piece of free software is a wound against proprietary software, the more liberal licences like LGPL and the BSD/MIT-style licences are a wound against free software: proprietary interests can take free code without giving anything back.

The GPL is not about giving code back. It's about giving forward.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#63

Post by icebraining »

olgeni wrote: post #26
endgame wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because while every piece of free software is a wound against proprietary software, the more liberal licences like LGPL and the BSD/MIT-style licences are a wound against free software: proprietary interests can take free code without giving anything back.

> proprietary interests can take free code without giving anything back. As long as the author is ok with that, and proprietary interests are happy with merging their own changes on each upstream release, I don't see any wounds. Also, sometimes it's better for proprietary interests to lift (for example) a working TCP/IP implementation, rather than implementing their own poor thing and put it on the 'net for everybody…

Also, sometimes it's better for proprietary interests to lift (for example) a working TCP/IP implementation, rather than implementing their own poor thing and put it on the 'net for everybody else to deal with.

rms agrees with you: http://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#64

Post by stcredzero »

jbk wrote: post #31
rangibaby wrote: post #14

Does this mean VLC will be back on the App Store? I remember it being pulled due to a contributor (who around ~2010 worked for Nokia) complaining to Apple.

Possibly, yes. But so far, iOS aout and vout are not LGPL.

You're saying that iOS about and bout must be LGPL first before there can be a VLC app in the iOS App Store? That goes against my idea of the point of LGPL, but I could well be wrong. I thought I could interface non-LGPL code with it.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#65

Post by jbk »

belorn wrote: post #59
jbk wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are not able to enforce the GPL anyway, so let's help companies use VLC and contribute back, so this benefits all users. Competition. AppStores and other crap of the post-PC era. :)

okey, so beyond AppStore and theirs rules/eula/requirements and so on, the goal is to increase third-party contributions from companies? I would be very interested to see some data on that, say gathered over a year or two. Licenses decision really need more scientific approach, and if the main desire from choosing a license is to attract more third-party contributions, GPL vs LGPL is an interesting situation. Have yo…

> okey, so beyond AppStore and theirs rules/eula/requirements and so on, the goal is to increase third-party contributions from companies?

Yes

> Have you seen a change in third-party contributions from companies for the libVLCcore after the license change?

Yes, but most of them asked for more.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#66

Post by beagle3 »

Wait, doesn't the LGPL require users to be able to substitute their own compiled version?

How does the LGPL relicense solve the Apple AppStore problem everyone is talking about? Apple may approve LGPLd code, but as far as I can tell, they still do not comply with it under their current distribution system.

edit: wrote iOS instead of LGPL in the first line, thanks simonh

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#67

Post by jbk »

stcredzero wrote: post #64
jbk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly, yes. But so far, iOS aout and vout are not LGPL.

You're saying that iOS about and bout must be LGPL first before there can be a VLC app in the iOS App Store? That goes against my idea of the point of LGPL, but I could well be wrong. I thought I could interface non-LGPL code with it.

The audio output and video output are still GPL, so far. Maybe this was not clear enough.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#68

Post by mikegerwitz »

pretoriusB wrote: post #46
endgame wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because while every piece of free software is a wound against proprietary software, the more liberal licences like LGPL and the BSD/MIT-style licences are a wound against free software: proprietary interests can take free code without giving anything back.

> Because while every piece of free software is a wound against proprietary software, the more liberal licences like LGPL and the BSD/MIT-style licences are a wound against free software Some of like like our proprietary software very much, thank you. I wouldn't want to live in a world where there would not have been a Photoshop, a Premiere or a Logic Pro but only their open source "alternatives". > proprietary inter…

> If X was GPL, the company would not have touched it, and would have opted for some other project instead. All those contributions back to the X community would have been lost.

It is important to understand the distinction between "open source" and "free software". Open source focuses on the benefits of "open" code and development and how it can create superior software. Free Software focuses on the ethical issues---while free software developers certainly want contributors, the emphasis is on the fact that the software respects your freedom and, for that, it's far superior to any other proprietary alternative; free software users constantly make sacrifices in functionality and usability, and we're okay with that.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h...

(I'm not saying that those are the views of the VLC project---I know very little of their opinions.)

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#69

Post by mansr »

belorn wrote: post #48
_pferreir_ wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they can, which doesn't mean they will. I understand you may not like BSD/MIT, but LGPL seems pretty reasonable to me. It all depends on how big/important your software is... if it's something that you're sure you'll never be able to make a living out of and that may be useful for others, why ask for anything else other than an acknowledgement?

Citing a comment made by a lawyer several years ago. First ask oneself what situations you dont want to be in, and then prepare yourself for it. Some people dont want to see their code being used in a context that might hurt a other human being, like spyware hidden inside a video player. Say someone modified VLC to produce a proprietary video player which included functions that spied on the users activities. As a de…

Nothing in the GPL prevents such uses.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#70

Post by jbk »

Nursie wrote: post #12

On a reading of how it was done, I guess if anyone had contributed stuff under the GPL and particularly objected to LGPL relicensing the could probably still make arguments about derivative works... Interestingly there's no mention of dissenting opinions from anywhere. Not that I'm implying that this move is a bad thing, I would just expect if you ask a large enough group of developers any question about licensing yo…

> On a reading of how it was done, I guess if anyone had contributed stuff under the GPL and particularly objected to LGPL relicensing the could probably still make arguments about derivative works... Read part 1 and 3

> Interestingly there's no mention of dissenting opinions from anywhere. Not that I'm implying that this move is a bad thing, I would just expect if you ask a large enough group of developers any question about licensing you would get a variety of arguments cropping up.

Because the vast majority of VLC developers want their code to be used, not fight over licenses.

Post reply on HN