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

131–140 of 149 posts

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#131

Post by jbk »

twelve45 wrote: post #119
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…

Most commercial work these days leverage several open source libraries. And once a library becomes part of your core product, it is in your interest to support further development of that library by contributing code, time, money, etc. Unlike other OSS licenses like BSD, Apache, LGPL, etc, GPL makes it impossible to utilize the library in any way in a commercial product. My current company works on some video related…

Don't hesitate to contact us (me) if you need to discuss.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#132

Post by jordigh »

jbk wrote: post #56
belorn wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you explain in a bit more details why you did this move from GPL to LGPL? The blog post did not want to expand on this, and I for one would very much like to hear, from your view, what benefits the project might get from this move. Preferable in practical terms, as "more professional developers around VLC" sound a bit vague and, if that is really the stated goal, will you follow up on this with statistics to sh…

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. :)

> We are not able to enforce the GPL anyway

Why not?

What prevented you from asking someone like the Software Freedom Law Centre or Software Conservacy to help you enforce it? Do you actually need lawyers to enforce the license?

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#133

Post by ChuckMcM »

jbk wrote: post #30

This is my website :) (I did not expect that to come on HN, to be honest) Anyway, the title is, of course, misleading. VLC core, named libVLCcore is LGPL since last year (I did it too in december) and the wrapper for 3rd party applications libVLC was relicensed too at the same time. This is different, since most modules of VLC are now LGPL. We speak about codecs, demuxers, format parsers, protocol accesses, filter an…

Very nice, so will we see a new VLC app for iOS? I've been carefully syncing and copying my copy to insure it stays on my iPad.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#134

Post by twelve45 »

mindcrime wrote: post #130
sciurus wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"GPL makes it impossible to utilize the library in any way in a commercial product" That's not strictly true. You could license your commercial product as GPL, or (more likely) contact the library's authors and negotiate usage of the code under another license.

I'ts not just "not strictly true," it's not true at all. Nothing in the GPL prohibits GPL'd code from being used in commercial products. What is prohibited is using it in proprietary, closed-source products. You can have a product which is both F/OSS and commercial. Ask Red Hat, for example.

You are right, of course. "commercial" was the wrong terminology; I meant proprietary, closed-source products as you said.

However, whatever your views on closed source products, they are still quite prevalent. IMO LGPL is a great license to get support from companies that sell these products, while ensuring that your software fundamentally remains free.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#135

Post by twelve45 »

jbk wrote: post #131
twelve45 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most commercial work these days leverage several open source libraries. And once a library becomes part of your core product, it is in your interest to support further development of that library by contributing code, time, money, etc. Unlike other OSS licenses like BSD, Apache, LGPL, etc, GPL makes it impossible to utilize the library in any way in a commercial product. My current company works on some video related…

Don't hesitate to contact us (me) if you need to discuss.

Will do, thank you for the offer jbk. Again, great work. I can't begin to imagine how painful it must've been to get everything relicensed! Sometimes it's such "non-technical" work that ensures the continued success of a product.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#136

Post by gillianseed »

sciurus wrote: post #121
twelve45 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most commercial work these days leverage several open source libraries. And once a library becomes part of your core product, it is in your interest to support further development of that library by contributing code, time, money, etc. Unlike other OSS licenses like BSD, Apache, LGPL, etc, GPL makes it impossible to utilize the library in any way in a commercial product. My current company works on some video related…

"GPL makes it impossible to utilize the library in any way in a commercial product" That's not strictly true. You could license your commercial product as GPL, or (more likely) contact the library's authors and negotiate usage of the code under another license.

This is how the x264 developers do it IIRC, they offer x264 under GPL and if you want to use it in a proprietary manner you need to buy a licence from them in order to do so.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#137

Post by byroot »

mindcrime wrote: post #130
sciurus wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"GPL makes it impossible to utilize the library in any way in a commercial product" That's not strictly true. You could license your commercial product as GPL, or (more likely) contact the library's authors and negotiate usage of the code under another license.

I'ts not just "not strictly true," it's not true at all. Nothing in the GPL prohibits GPL'd code from being used in commercial products. What is prohibited is using it in proprietary, closed-source products. You can have a product which is both F/OSS and commercial. Ask Red Hat, for example.

It's sad to see how the FUD around the GPL is widespread.

It remind me a few months ago the launch of meteor.js. I heard so much people saying that it was "not usable commercially"...

And the worse is that the same people have MongoDB in production with it's AGPL license.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#138

Post by general_failure »

andyzweb wrote: post #60
jbk wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main reason, is that VLC is too mainstream... For people who want to spend hours to configure their system, MPC-HC with madVR can give better upscaling and foobar gives better audio fidelity. Most of the rest is usual rants from issues that VLC had in the past, but that 1337 video people like to bring up to explain how their setup is soooo much better.

I have to ask. Do you frequent /g/?

Sorry, what is /g/ ?

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#139

Post by belorn »

mkr-hn wrote: post #108
belorn wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Adding ads or sending videos to be accepted by a copyright central are not very far away. Youtube already does this. If the video editing tool was bundled exclusively with youtube (a extreme an absurd concept I know), the examples would be instantly true. So far, I don't know of any video editing tool directly connected to youtube, but then I haven't checked on every video editing tool on iphone and android. I would be surprised if there didnt exist at least one.

Hidden watermarks already happen by printer software and some screenshot programs. Some digital cameras also do this. It not a really a big leap to say that a proprietary editing tools would/could auto-include watermarking if there was a business case for it. I would imagine that a photo editing tool bundled with getty or flickr could very easy find a business case to know when a image get posted outside its domain. Actually, there might already exist some photo-editing tools on iphone/android that do this already.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#140

Post by gillianseed »

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…

>On the contrary. In reality BSD style licenses _enable_ companies to give something back to a project, whereas they would not be able with a GPL license.

All it takes is to list projects like Linux and GCC to show that yes, companies can give something back just fine with GPL.

What you are referring to are companies who wants to use open source in proprietary software, and yes for them GPL is not an option unless they can make a deal with the owners of said GPL licenced software for dual licencing. Then again GPL is created on the premise that all recipients shall have access to the source code so obviously it won't work with proprietary software which typically relies on keeping the source code hidden while charging for binaries.

>That's one of the reasons developers chose BSD/MIT/LGPL over GPL. Because they _specifically_ want people and companies to be able to have that option.

And one of the reasons developers chose GPL over BSD/MIT is that they want to recieve ANY enhancements made to their code.

There's no right or wrong here, developers will make the decision for THEIR code.

So typically an open source developer will choose between:

do I want to allow people/companies to take the code I offer and return nothing/only what they want of any changes they make (BSD/MIT-style)

or do I want them to have to return any changes made to the specific code I share (LGPL,MPL-style)

or do I want them to open source any code with witch they link my code (GPL)

Looking at how these licences are employed in 'real-life' it's my impression that GPL is often used for larger, full solutions/applications, while BSD/MIT/LGPL/MPL etc are dominant in component/framework style code.

Again I'm not taking any sides when it comes to licencing, I also have no problem with proprietary code (unless it tries to lock-in my data by only offering a proprietary format which is a no-no for me).

Post reply on HN