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

71–80 of 149 posts

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#71

Post by uxp »

tobiasu wrote: post #49
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. I have bad news for you. Proprietary interests do take GPL code (any version), heavily modify and extend it, without ever giving back. The GPL specifies that you have to give the source code to the entities you distribute the work to - not to the general public or the original authors. Since most custom software is B2B, it will "never" show up o…

My Visio TV has GPLd and other more open code in it (libmpeg2, among others like libpng and libtiff). The manual states something like "As required by law, you can log on to our website and request a CD of the code running on this machine for a manufacturing fee, blah blah".

Naturally, their site has no such thing, and customer service gives you strange looks when you ask for the code that runs on the TV. Its a pretty common red-tape circus. Everyone does that. I have no stake in the matter personally, so I haven't pursued it very far, but you're absolutely correct that GPL code is consistently used inappropriately. The only time the license restricts someone from using it is when they try to follow the rules. "When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns".

That said, it's still nice to see projects realize this and try to give people that follow the rules more personal freedom to incorporate the code into something that might need to be more closed than a sourceforge project.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#74

Post by stcredzero »

jbk wrote: post #67
stcredzero wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, you mean in VLC lib itself. BTW, will there be a "static link exception" for the iOS App Store?

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#75

Post by radarsat1 »

pretoriusB wrote: post #47
jbk wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rémi Denis-Courmont is the biggest contributor of VLC, so far, and he pushed forward the LGPL move... :)

But, since, LGPL enables the iOS port as an option again, what made RD-C change his mind? A cynic would ask if it has anything to do with not working for Nokia anymore...

How does LGPL enable the iOS port?

My understanding of LGPL is that it requires that users be able to switch out the LGPL-licensed code. This implies dynamic linking, not a difficult proposition, but more fundamentally it requires that users are able to access the LGPL code portion, delete it, and replace it with something else. I don't see how any old iOS user can do this without paying a dev fee.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#76

Post by simonh »

beagle3 wrote: post #66

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

I think you mean LGPL where you say iOS in the first sentence.

I can't answer your question, but just point out that huge chunks of iOS itself are LGPL already, such as webkit, and the LGPL version of ffmpeg is already widely used.

There has been some speculation in the past that because iOS mandates static linking that this is a problem for using LGPL libraries, but I fall into the 'linking creates a compilation, not a derived work' camp and if the compilation interpretation is correct then static linking isn't a problem.

But every time I dig into LGPL interpretation and linking issues, eventually my head starts hurting and I give up.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#77

Post by sanxiyn »

Sun RPC should be mentioned here.

The long, sordid tale of Sun RPC, abbreviated somewhat, to protect the guily and the irresponsible http://spot.livejournal.com/315383.html

GNU/Linux - finally it's Free software http://webmink.com/2010/08/30/gnulinux-finally-its-free-soft...

The Saga of Sun RPC http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/08/27/sun-rpc.html

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#78

Post by pretoriusB »

icebraining wrote: post #61
pretoriusB wrote: post #46

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 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 in…

>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.

In principle, yes, it's problematic to assume any alternative reality in which something has changed will otherwise be the same as ours. Things affect each other.

That said, the assumption in this _particular_ case seems like a safe bet to me. For one, Photoshop does not have a "relatively cheap price". It's over $500 dollars by itself, and some thousand dollars with the rest of the suite.

Also note that the people that "have a copy of Photoshop" and need it with all it's power are not the same people that are "devoting more resources to the alternatives". The former are graphic designers and illustrators, where the latter are programmers.

Since most programmers are casual image editing software users, they wouldn't need Photoshop. And indeed, those users get just fine with Gimp. So it's not like if Photoshop wasn't available programmers would have flocked to make an equivalent program.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#79

Post by pretoriusB »

mikegerwitz wrote: post #68
pretoriusB wrote: post #46

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 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--…

>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

Well, the "far superior" part is just, like, your opinion, man. [to quote "The Dude"].

>free software users constantly make sacrifices in functionality and usability, and we're okay with that.

If a more usable program or one with more functionality can make people freer to do stuff with it, then the software doesn't really respect their full freedom, only a constrained software-centric notion of it.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#80

Post by Nursie »

jbk wrote: post #70
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 quest…

> Read part 1 and 3

I have read part 1, didn't know there was a part 3.

I'm just saying that imagine (in a hypothetical situation) there is a large code module written by an original author under the GPL. Over time it is worked on and line by line it is eventually fully replaced with new code by 5 other people.

Even if you get the 5 to agree to a license change, the original 1 would still have an argument that it was all derived from his original work and should remain under GPL.

I have no idea if this situation applies to you, it was just an idle thought.

Post reply on HN