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

81–90 of 149 posts

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#81

Post by icebraining »

pretoriusB wrote: post #78
icebraining wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ot…

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.

A price is only cheap or expensive relatively to something. Compared to the necessary money to improve a free program, $500 is ridiculously cheap. It's also pretty cheap compared to the benefits accrued by most professionals users by using it.

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.

And exactly why wouldn't designers and illustrators pay (read: devote resources) programmers to improve it, just like they do now?

If your claim is that people don't pay for OSS development, my paycheck says otherwise.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#82

Post by Nursie »

jbk wrote: post #35
pm215 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The commit message includes in its list of modules which are not converted: - iOS audio output and video display, because author refuses the license change - Mono, Headphone and Dolby, because author refuses the license change So there is some dissenting opinion.

2 authors out of 230 is not that much... And for example, the author of headphone objected only on Headphone and Dolby, but allowed the rest of his code to be changed.

That's quite remarkable, given how contrary and argumentative developers often seem to be!

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#83

Post by DannyBee »

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

LGPL (let's stick with version 2.1 for now) gives you a set of options for a "work that uses the library".

Those options are:

1. Give out source to the library, and either source or object code to the work that uses the library (so that the work can be relinked)

2. Use shared linking and build the work into a .so that would work if the user replaced it (There is a point of contention in LGPL 2.1 as to whether you need to make it possible for the user to replace the .so. It's clear what the spirit is, but the actual wording does not require it)

3. Include a written offer for the stuff in #1.

4. Offer source from #1 through the same place that offers binaries.

5. Verify that the user already has the source, or that you already sent it to the user.

If the app store requires static linking, that rules out #2.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#84

Post by emehrkay »

nicholassmith wrote: post #9
ars wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which AppStore? Isn't it already available on Google's AppStore?

iTunes App Store, GPL is incompatible so it was pulled by request, I've still got a copy on my iPad though.

I've downloaded VLC and XBMC when they were both available in the App Store, hod do I re-download? They dont appear in the "purchased" section

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#85

Post by jbk »

radarsat1 wrote: post #75
pretoriusB wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You could do a proprietary application about libVLC+VLCKit and distribute on the AppStore. And one could still side-load your application.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#86

Post by jbk »

stcredzero wrote: post #74
jbk wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I am not sure to understand what you mean, to be honest.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#87

Post by crististm »

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…

BSD is used exactly because you can hide your improvements from others. You can hide the code of your proprietary extensions.

If you choose to, you can give or take away my freedom to further improve these extensions. No different from closed source.

On the other hand if what you are targeting are "companies" that take your code and never give back, then BSD is a fine choice.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#88

Post by jbk »

Nursie wrote: post #80
jbk wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I'm just saying that imagine (in a hypothetical situation) there is a large code module written by an original author under the GPL.

This is not the case here. And part 1 explains exactly this, with the git log part.

Part 3 will close the loop altogether.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#89

Post by crististm »

Lots of efforts that otherwise could have been used on something more productive.

GPL was just fine. No VLC on AppStore - I could live without. Hey, I can live without Apple too but this is not about me.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#90

Post by jbk »

Nursie wrote: post #82
jbk wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2 authors out of 230 is not that much... And for example, the author of headphone objected only on Headphone and Dolby, but allowed the rest of his code to be changed.

That's quite remarkable, given how contrary and argumentative developers often seem to be!

Yep. I was surprised too :)
Post reply on HN