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

111–120 of 149 posts

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#111

Post by Fixnum »

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.

The idea of a nation-state considering itself bound by the GPL is absurd.

Only users can keep themselves safe -- developers can't.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#112

Post by DannyBee »

beagle3 wrote: post #106
DannyBee wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (co…

Yes, I do. It's pretty evenly divided as to whether lawyers believe this requires giving away signing keys. It's certainly not a simply cut and dry issue like you present it here.

You may want to get into rehashing that discussion, but i've already had that discussion more than once during GPLv3 and LGPLv3 drafting, and it was enough fun there :)

I also am firmly in one of those camps of open source lawyers, and so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to try to reproduce the arguments of the other side, but, at the same time, nothing is ever as black and white as most folks like to think, and I would be stupid to pretend they didn't have a reasonable argument.

In any case, this is why GPLv3 and LGPLv3 is explicit on this point.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#113

Post by jbk »

belorn wrote: post #105
jbk wrote: post #65

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? 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.

So far, this is just a feeling, but I cannot give numbers, because I don't have them. I'll try to compute some in the next months.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#114

Post by jbk »

paxswill wrote: post #98
jbk wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I thought that that was the point of contention; that it is not normally possible to sideload software onto iOS devices. If sideloading was possible (hmm, would jailbreaking count?), no biggie, just make the object files available for linking like Sparrow did ( http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/lgpl.php ).

> I thought that that was the point of contention

I think not. The issues were mainly 2:

- The Apple EULA was applied ON TOP of the GPL, whatever happened. This was clearly incompatible. And this is not resolved with Apple updates on the iTunes ToS.

- The Apple ToS did not allowed you to use the App for every use, which is a violation of the GPL §0. This is still an issue today.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#115

Post by anonymous »

irahul wrote: post #19
Hupo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because better and equally free and open source alternatives have existed for about as long yet remain more unknown. VLC sure plays a lot of things, but it's a a real jack of all trades and master of none. I certainly understand it's appeal, but there's certainly better yet equally simple solutions out there as well (eg. CCCP for Windows, various MPlayer2 bundles for OS X like MPlayer.app). Of course, the "downside"…

What does other players do better than vlc?

The audio drivers for my on-board soundcard are shit. I'm using Arch Linux and PulseAudio. VLC and Skype (but only these two) exhibit the problem of a crackling echo when playing sound which sometimes fixes itself. Since there's only two applications that exhibit this problem and

1) I don't care about sound quality on Skype

2) mplayer2 handles everything perfectly

3) My hardware is a crap on-board chip that's 5 years old and not made any more

I haven't been interested in pursuing a fix for this.

Also, mplayer2 does better upscaling with -vo gl:yuv=4:lscale=5:cscale=5

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#116

Post by jbk »

Nursie wrote: post #95
jbk wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Oops, missed that! In my defence I drank a lot of rum last night...

But you did not share your rum with me, this is unacceptable :)

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#117

Post by jbk »

bjustin wrote: post #109
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 th…

If you could send us the files, that would be very welcome :)

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#118

Post by koko775 »

bad_user wrote: post #104
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.

Did you even read the link?

> Even though SQLite is in the public domain and does not require a license, some users want to obtain a license anyway. Some reasons for obtaining a license include:

>

> * You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the public domain.

> * You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the right of an author to dedicate their work to the public domain.

> * You want to hold a tangible legal document as evidence that you have the legal right to use and distribute SQLite.

> * Your legal department tells you that you have to purchase a license.

>

> If you feel like you really have to purchase a license for SQLite, Hwaci, the company that employs the architect and principal developers of SQLite, will sell you one.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#119

Post by twelve45 »

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…

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 stuff, and we use OpenCV, ffmpeg etc but we completely steered clear of libVLC due to the GPL licensing (even though we think it's a fantastic piece of software). We will however be revisiting this now due to this excellent work by jbk.

Re: VLC Core is LGPL

#120

Post by jbk »

bcantrill wrote: post #99

Congratulations to JB and team on completing this Herculean task! I had the pleasure of meeting JB when he and I shared a ride from the airport in Porto Alegre for this year's FISL.[1] When he asked me what I was going to be presenting on, I (not yet knowing anything about JB's work) had some trepidation in responding: my presentation was on corporate open source anti-patterns[2] -- and one of my conclusions was that…

Thanks :)
Post reply on HN