Everyone can agree on VLC being the best video player, right? Game developers can agree on it too, since it is a great utility for playing multimedia in games, and/or have a video player included. However, disaster struck; Unity has now banned VLC from the Unity Store, seemingly due to it being under the LGPL license which is a “Violation of section 5.10.4 of the Provider agreement.” This is a contridiction however. According to Martin Finkel in the linked article, “Unity itself, both the Editor and the runtime (which means your shipped game) is already using LGPL dependencies! Unity is built on libraries such as Lame, libiconv, libwebsockets and websockify.js (at least).” Unity is swiftly coming to it’s demise.

Edit: link to Videolan Blog Post: https://mfkl.github.io/2024/01/10/unity-double-oss-standards.html

  • Ross_audio@lemmy.worldEnglish
    61·
    11 months ago

    For context.

    https://www.zdnet.com/article/if-vlc-can-ship-a-free-dvd-player-why-cant-microsoft/

    Under French law DVD and Blu-ray codecs aren’t patentable and VLC is based in France. The organisation isn’t breaking any laws.

    Whether using VLC in the US is the legal grey area.

    So it’s not VideoLAN who might be breaking a law, it’s you by circumventing the anti piracy keys in DVDs and Blurays. Millennium copyright act and anywhere that signs up to a treaty containing reciprocal copyright law might have an issue.

    Patent infringements might also be possible in the US if you edited that open source code in that country, but US to EU patent treaties don’t cover software France deems unpatentable so distributing the codec is probably fine as long as it’s of French origin (and non-commercial use as per the GPL licence)

    In the UK, the codec might be patentable now after Brexit interestingly but we haven’t yet diverged on patent treaties with the EU yet as far as I know and we’re part of the US patent treaty still.

    Similar things happened with MP3 codecs in Linux before it was also made free. You’d either be prompted to make the choice to install yourself during or after the install. Or perhaps 2 downloads offered, one with and one without.

    All to show you as an individual made the choice to use those codecs. If there were any possible damages from an individual download is would be less than $40 in licencing. So a lawyer would have to submit a case for each individual for that as a possible settlement, not even guaranteed.

    As long as a large organisation isn’t liable for the codec install, it falls into “de minimis” legal territory.

    I remember a Live CD install of Ubuntu required some hoops to get codecs at one point in the distant past. I looked it up then out of curiosity.