Unity's Open-Source Double Standard: The Ban of VLC

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Unity’s removal and permanent ban of the open-source “VLC for Unity” plugin from its Asset Store, citing prohibitions on GPL/LGPL-licensed code, has triggered criticism over inconsistent and selectively enforced licensing rules. Commenters debate whether LGPL is actually incompatible with app-store distribution, note that Unity itself and many existing assets rely on LGPL components, and speculate that legal overcaution, internal incompetence, or competitive motives may be driving the policy. The episode is framed as part of a broader tension between app-store control, open-source licensing, and developer trust in dominant platforms.

Unity’s Asset Store Ban and Policy Rationale

  • Unity’s provider terms explicitly ban GPL and LGPL (by name) and “similar” copyleft licenses from Asset Store assets.
  • Some commenters argue this is rational risk management: Unity would become a redistributor bound by LGPL obligations and doesn’t want that contract or audit burden.
  • Others see it as overcautious or hostile to copyleft, designed to keep licensing “frictionless” for game devs who expect store assets to be plug‑and‑play on all platforms.

LGPL, Linking, and App Stores

  • Long discussion on what LGPL actually requires:
    • If you modify an LGPL library you must provide source; users must be able to relink with a modified version.
    • Dynamic linking is the common compliance path, but static linking can also comply if you provide object files or equivalent.
  • App stores (iOS, Android, consoles) complicate this: code signing, DRM and store rules often prevent end users from swapping libraries, potentially making strict LGPL compliance impossible in practice.
  • Some argue LGPLv2 might still be compatible if modification is only “technically possible,” even if hard (e.g., sideloading, jailbreaking); others say that’s effectively broken by “tivoization.”
  • There is disagreement over whether distributing LGPL code via such stores is already widely non‑compliant.

Selective Enforcement and Double Standard Claims

  • The article claims VLC’s Unity assets were banned for LGPL, yet many other Unity assets allegedly ship LGPL dependencies (e.g., FFmpeg) without consequence.
  • Commenters note Unity itself reportedly uses LGPL components in the editor and runtime; some see this as a double standard, others reply that Unity controls its own build/distribution pipeline, unlike third‑party assets.
  • Several see the ban as laziness: easiest legal path is to eject a reported asset rather than work with them on compliance.

Reaction to VLC’s Post and New Store

  • Some readers think the article pivoted awkwardly into promoting a new store, reading as “clickbait” or an ad; others defend it as a natural “we were banned, here’s our alternative” narrative.
  • It’s emphasized that the Unity plugin remains open source; paid offerings cover prebuilt binaries and support.

Broader Themes

  • Debate over “viral licensing” vs “copyleft,” with some pushing back on “viral” as pejorative.
  • The original author of the LGPL (v1 era) notes app stores and signed binaries weren’t anticipated; sees iOS‑style platforms as fundamentally at odds with LGPL’s user‑modification goals.
  • Broader criticism of app-store power, arbitrary moderation, and Unity’s recent leadership and business decisions.