VLC Core is LGPL • Hacker News Board

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#101

Post by ontheotherhand » Thu, Nov 15, 2012, 3:44 PM UTC

Hupo wrote: post #40

ucee054 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"jack of all trades" = superior product "master of one" = inferior product see also: Worse Is Better, Innovator's Dilemma

The difference here is that the better players also play a similarly wide range of formats (since it generally all comes down to libavcodec at some point), but due to various factors they overall do it better . I keep VLC installed for testing purposes and as a backup were my main playback setup with MPC-HC ever fail to play something, but I've never actually had to resort to VLC for this reason.

"the better players also play a similarly wide range of formats"

I guess the keyword is "similarly" here? VLC is the only player that plays all video clips from crappy digital cameras I owned over the years; out of the box, or with a million codec packs, neither VirtualDub nor Premiere nor other video players can parse them. I don't really care about those clips, and they sure are shoddy quality; but it always impressed me, VLC is quite the omnivore. It plays stuff even GSpot can't make heads or tail of. This might not matter for videophiles, who by definition would want their movies to be in a good and modern format, but still, yay VLC :)

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#102

Post by kcase » Thu, Nov 15, 2012, 3:46 PM UTC

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.

Yes, you need to be able to switch out the LGPL-licensed code, but dynamic linking is just the most convenient way to doing that—it's certainly never been required. You can also offer the rest of your combined work's code in a form suitable for re-linking (e.g., by providing .o or .a files for the rest of your app).

There is no requirement that end users be able to do any of this on a platform without becoming licensed developers for that platform. (At the time LGPL was written, many platform vendors charged hundreds or even thousands of dollars for their developer tools.)

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#103

Post by ontheotherhand » Thu, Nov 15, 2012, 3:48 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #62

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.

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

The wittiest thing I read today was at the very bottom of a HN discussion, whooshing over people's heads :)

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#104

Post by bad_user » Thu, Nov 15, 2012, 3:54 PM UTC

chj wrote: post #72

Every time a GPL related post comes up, it always reminds me of the sqlite project, and how the world could be simpler without those weird licenses. http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html

In general you cannot place your work under public domain because in many countries (including in the U.S. with some exceptions) the work must enter the public domain by itself after the copyrights expired. The copyright term also differs of course from country to country. Even worse, there are jurisdictions in which the public domain is not recognized.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#105

Post by belorn » Thu, Nov 15, 2012, 3:58 PM UTC

jbk wrote: post #65

belorn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Could you give, or point where one might find more details. How many more lines of code from third-party patches? 2x? 5x? 10x? Hows the quality? Are there more donations? If one take a scientific point of view, whats been the practical changes of how third-party contributions?

Those details can be very useful for the community of free and open source software, and when deciding licensing for oneself.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#106

Post by beagle3 » Thu, Nov 15, 2012, 4:19 PM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #83

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 nee…

From section 6 of LGPL 2.1: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html

""" For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it. However, as a special exception, the materials to be distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

It may happen that this requirement contradicts the license restrictions of other proprietary libraries that do not normally accompany the operating system. Such a contradiction means you cannot use both them and the Library together in an executable that you distribute. """

I believe this makes #1 insufficient, (and by reference, #3, #4, #5) - as that requires apple to also distribute the material needed to sign the executable for your specific phone (as an end user) if they give you the executable signed for your specific phone.

Do you have reason to believe otherwise?

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#107

Post by beagle3 » Thu, Nov 15, 2012, 4:24 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #76

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, no…

Well, stop reading the LGPL interpretation, and start reading the LGPL itself - it is written in English (rather than legalese) and is very clear on most subjects.

Specifically, it cares that the end user can "swap out" the LGPLd code for their modified version, which is not available in the iOS AppStore regardless of compilation vs. derived work interpretation (a distinction without difference if I understand it correctly).

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#108

Post by mkr-hn » Thu, Nov 15, 2012, 5:12 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #100

pretoriusB wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. [t…

Mixing the concepts of functionality and freedom into one concept do not work. If the program has more functionality, but limits the users in way of Intellectual freedom or Liberties, it doesnt make people more "freer to do stuff". What you got is a program with less freedom but more functionality. Two distinct property of the program. Let me make an exmaple. Is a video editing program "very free" if it have every fu…

What proprietary software does those things? It sounds like you're throwing out absurd imaginary examples to support a position.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#109

Post by bjustin » Thu, Nov 15, 2012, 5:20 PM UTC

Hupo wrote: post #10

Good for them, I guess. Though VLC's popularity still makes me pretty sad and how better video players like MPC-HC (on Windows) and mplayer/mplayer2 (on everything else) are much more unknown in comparison. I mean, most of VLC's development outside of the streaming stuff has been about playing catch-up with these two for years. But well, the unfortunate truth is that many people are bad at computers and if they manag…

MPC-HC is a good player on Windows, but VLC 2.0.x has been better in my experience. MPC-HC cannot handle some files that VLC plays fine, and I have not noticed any video quality difference between the two. I have stuck with CCCP for MPC-HC, which requires putting a bit more time into MPC-HC than just downloading VLC.

There are some files that MPC-HC does play that VLC does not, but these are fewer in my experience than the reverse case.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#110

Post by Sanddancer » Thu, Nov 15, 2012, 5:25 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #96

mansr wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing in the GPL prevents such uses.

Well, GPL do prevent the production of an proprietary video player based on GPL code. Sure, they can produce a video player full of spyware and then give the source of the spyware to their users, but then, that would render that spyware useless as soon a anti-virus got their hand on it. Not to mention, users would avoid the program as the spyware would then be known.

Your GPLed video player wouldn't stop that in the least. Were I a government in such a situation, I could very easily either claim sovereign immunity to any sort of copyright questioning, or I could write a function that monitors what files were opened by the user that used well-exposed file system APIs, like inotify. The GPL would not stop human rights abuses at all.