this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
1061 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

59594 readers
3434 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DocMcStuffin@lemmy.world 268 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Found the article where the screenshot came from, and wow it's even more infuriating! The VideoLAN folks tried to work with them for months, and Unity seems to have cranial rectal inversion.

[–] mastefetri@infosec.pub 129 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Unity is probably developing their own video player and they wants devs to pay them for it, not use VLC for free.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 22 points 10 months ago

This is almost certainly the case

load more comments (2 replies)

😑↔️🍑

[–] yetAnotherUser@lemmy.ca 223 points 10 months ago (20 children)

For anyone wondering:

  1. There was a plugin on Unity Store that acted a bridge between Unity and libVLC, which allowed developers to make video players inside the game engine. As the post says, it got removed.
  2. This plugin isn't made by VideoLAN, it's made by a company named Videolabs that includes several people who supposedly have contributed a lot on VLC and FFMPEG.
  3. The Videolan team made a blog post about this, if you want to know more: https://mfkl.github.io/2024/01/10/unity-double-oss-standards.html
[–] jrgd@lemm.ee 89 points 10 months ago

VideoLabs is made up of many of the same contributors of VideoLAN, including Jean-Baptiste Kempf themself. It is arguable that this is in fact Unity banning VideoLAN's VLC bridges for media playback in Unity.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] rivermonster@lemmy.world 141 points 10 months ago (6 children)

Wait, people are still using Unity after they clearly demonstrated they'll fuck you on a whim? Honestly, seems like everyone's been given a fair warning about dealing with these scumbags. I get migrating a codebase is a motherfucker, and sometimes it is even easier to redevelop much or all of the project. But again, if you're renting retail space from someone who is a psychopath, bipolar, and an arsonist (Unity in this case), and they might burn your shop down at any moment, sometimes you gotta move!

[–] Signtist@lemm.ee 88 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: when a company does something that shows it doesn’t have its customers’ best interests in mind, it's imperative that it be immediately and wholly abandoned.

Companies have long since learned that we'll ignore major red flags for the sake of convenience, and at this point they're not even trying to hide the flags - they're proudly flying them and laughing as we continue to give them business.

[–] ItsMeSpez@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago (4 children)

This is a good policy, but it's not always that simple for people who have been making games on the engine. Many people have spent years of their lives working on projects using Unity, or have already released products using Unity which they are now supporting. Changing a project to another game engine is a massive undertaking, so Unity has a semi-captive consumer base in the short term.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago

New stuff would go well to end up under Godot. Porting your old s*** over and replicating all the assets and plugins is an insurmountable feet for most.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] uhmbah@lemmy.ca 136 points 10 months ago (6 children)

Front VLC blog, link in post above

"After months of slow back-and-forth over email trying to find a compromise, including offering to exclude LGPL code from the assets, Unity basically told us we were not welcome back to their Store, ever. Even if we were to remove all LGPL code from the Unity package.

Where it gets fun is that there are currently hundreds if not thousands of Unity assets that include LGPL dependencies (such as FFmpeg) in the Store right now. Enforcement is seemingly totally random, unless you get reported by someone, apparently."

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 72 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Imagine not using FFmpeg or anything that uses FFmpeg 🤣🤣🤣🤣

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] alienangel@sffa.community 39 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Any reason not to expect all the others to get reported now? If Unity wants to tear themselves down, might as well speed it up.

[–] Cqrd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

According to the article, unity is literally built on software that uses this licensing, so it's weird that they'd start going against it now. Their runtime literally includes it

[–] rob_t_firefly@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

Time to report Unity to itself so it can ban itself from its store.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] gerbler@lemmy.world 116 points 10 months ago (5 children)

What pisses me off about the whole Unity thing is that if Unity makes itself eat shit then it just further consolidates engines into fewer hands. Godot is great and all but it doesn't have everything Unreal has (I'm not throwing shade it'll get there dw) and I really really don't want Epic to have a bigger stranglehold on the games industry than it already does.

Unity had its niche and if the executives could stop fucking around it would be lovely to have as a competitor in the landscape.

Also to everyone saying "just don't use Unity": there are a lot of people who have put a lot of time and money and effort into learning Unity and it's not exactly as easy as you think to just switch to an entirely new workflow. You also have to consider how impractical it is to switch engines mid-development. There's a reason why Unreal 5 has been out for multiple years and we're only just seeing games developed with it now. Developers (especially ones with big budgets and all the caveats they come with) don't want to ship a game with the latest and greatest engine if there's kinks to be worked out. This is why you still see Unreal 4 in games released today.

[–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 30 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Epic donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Godot when Unity was being dumb this summer, so either they think an open-source project is on the brink of making their competitor unprofitable and collapse, and think enough of the studios jumping ship will come to Unreal to cover that sum, or they're concerned that someone will start enforcing antitrust laws and want something to point at to say they're not a monopoly.

[–] AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world 29 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Epic is just a troll company. They donated to Godot when it served as a jab in the side of their competition (unity). Their entire business model is to inflict Stockholm Syndrome on their users via free games.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 30 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It almost makes me think the higher ups got paid to kill Unity. All the C-suite got golden parachutes if they kill the project now.

Then I remember OGL and the fat lack of competition they had, and remember C-suite often don't know what they're actually in charge of. Malice vs stupidity and such.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Alsephina@lemmy.ml 98 points 10 months ago

Lmao they really don't want anyone to keep using their engine anymore

[–] Rustmilian@lemmy.world 87 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Go help out Godot or perhaps Bevy, financially, by contributing code &/or bug reports or by any other means you may be capable of.
When Unity dies you'll be thankful you did.

[–] Arete@lemmy.world 81 points 10 months ago (6 children)

LGPL requires distributing the license with any code. I imagine unity does that with the core code, but it would be difficult to enforce that for assets distributed in their store, which they would be liable for legally. I imagine this will be resolved, but I no longer use Unity so idfc

[–] Davel23@kbin.social 49 points 10 months ago (2 children)

From my understanding there are other third-party assets in the Unity store which use the LGPL but are not being removed.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No it won't. This is 5.10.4 of the Unity Provider agreement, it's total bullshit.

Provider represents and warrants that its Assets shall not contain (a) any software licensed under the GNU General Public License or GNU Library or Lesser General Public License, or any other license with terms that include a requirement to extend such license to any modification or combined work and provide for the distribution of the combined or modified product’s source code upon demand so that Customer content becomes subject to the terms of such license; or (b) any software that is a modification or derivative of any software licensed under the GNU General Public License or Library or Lesser Public License, or any other license with terms similar thereto so that Customer content become subject to the terms of such license.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (11 children)

Why is it bullshit? AFAIK, Unity wouldn't be able to comply with LGPL without supplying their own source code, so then this would be the only logical outcome.

[–] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

Unity let me go earlier this week, so I'm really not in the mood to defend them, but this is correct. I'm on the Unity hate train as much as the next guy and i feel this is pretty cut and dry.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] tabular@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

You are only required to give source code for changes to that part for LGPL code. So only the library requires that.

Other game engines supply thier source code. If Unity wants any hope of redemption they should let us inspect wtf it actually does on our computers (edit: and let us make it work for our needs).

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 37 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Okay but what's the real reason?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] cbarrick@lemmy.world 33 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Just report every other package that includes ffmpeg.

[–] Rustmilian@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago

Their asset store will dry up faster than a puddle of water in Death Valley if you do that. ◉⁠‿⁠◉

[–] Caligvla@lemmy.dbzer0.com 33 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Everyone can agree on VLC being the best video player, right?

cough mpv cough

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 19 points 10 months ago

We already know mpv causes upper respiratory infection, cover your mouth already.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Why does VLC need to be in the Unity store when you can download it directly from videolan.org?

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 91 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It's for including it in Unity games as a component.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 75 points 10 months ago (9 children)

I thought we all agreed that building games in Unity was a bad idea.

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 72 points 10 months ago

This is further proof of that.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pricklypearbear@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago

Not a game developer but I have a hunch that its for displaying videos within the game. Like a cut scene.

[–] Gerula@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Ohhh no, VLC has some problems with... who's this Unity fellow again?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 15 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Some of these comments are wack. "Just stop using Unity" bro some people don't get that choice.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] CaptainBasculin@lemmy.ml 23 points 10 months ago (2 children)

So does most popular game engines (like Unreal and Godot) to give game developers easier access to certain content they can use in their games.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Beardedsausag3@kbin.social 13 points 10 months ago

I went out for a walk earlier, not too far just couple of miles to clear my head. Get some fresh air. Anyway, regardless of how many signs my council like to spend money on to display the consequence of leaving your dogs shit, people still do it. Fact is, I saw a dog shit and it's getting harder to differentiate that dog shit and Unity.

load more comments
view more: next ›