Unity’s Open-Source Double Standard: the ban of VLC

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Unity’s asset-store policy and alleged double standard

  • Unity’s provider terms banned assets containing GPL/LGPL-style code that could “infect” customer content; this clause later moved from the legal page into submission guidelines.
  • Commenters note Unity’s own editor/runtime ships with multiple LGPL libraries and that many existing Asset Store packages bundle LGPL code (e.g. FFmpeg), yet only some are enforced against.
  • Several see this as arbitrary or retaliatory enforcement: the VLC-based plugin was removed and the publisher’s account permanently banned, even after offering to strip LGPL code.
  • Others argue Unity is drawing a line for third‑party content it must distribute and legally vouch for, while accepting more risk for its own carefully controlled dependencies.

GPL vs LGPL and widespread confusion

  • Many comments correct initial conflations of GPL and LGPL: LGPL is explicitly designed to allow proprietary software to link to the library, under conditions.
  • Repeated clarifications: LGPL permits commercial and proprietary use; GPL also permits commercial use but requires derivative works to be copyleft.
  • The thread highlights how even experienced developers and (likely) legal teams see “GPL” inside “LGPL” and overreact, reinforcing the article’s premise.

LGPL compliance: static vs dynamic linking, tivoization, and ambiguity

  • Dynamic linking is widely viewed as the simplest way to satisfy LGPL; static linking is allowed if users can relink against a modified library (e.g. via object files and build instructions).
  • People debate how realistic that is for complex engines, consoles, mobile platforms requiring signed binaries, and languages that default to static linking (Go/Rust).
  • LGPLv3’s anti‑tivoization clauses raise extra worries for locked-down devices; LGPLv2.1 does not, but some libraries are “v2.1 or later,” enabling an eventual switch to v3.
  • Several argue the text around “system libraries,” “general-purpose tools,” and installation information is vague enough that risk‑averse lawyers prefer blanket bans.

Open source vs free software, AGPL, and “leverage”

  • One long subthread frames permissive licenses as “donating” value to corporations and suggests AGPLv3 or proprietary-only as the sane choices if developers want leverage.
  • Others counter that AGPL is itself an OSI-approved open-source license and that the distinction between “open source” and “free software” is ideological, not about license lists.
  • Debate centers on whether copyleft (especially AGPL) meaningfully constrains big companies or just prompts rewrites, and whether permissive licenses leave developers and users exploited.

App stores, platforms, and practical enforcement

  • Historical parallels are drawn with Apple’s App Store and GPL issues; modern versions of VLC use LGPL/MPL to be admissible.
  • Questions arise whether Unity and console titles themselves comply with LGPLv3 on locked-down platforms; answers are inconclusive and marked as legally unclear.
  • Some suggest patent and DMCA risks around codecs in VLC/FFmpeg may be an unstated driver for Unity’s stance.

Community response and engine alternatives

  • Many comments express frustration at Unity’s “hostile” behavior, opaque legalism, and willingness to ban developers; some call for EU “gatekeeper” scrutiny.
  • Multiple participants say recent incidents (including this one) reinforced their decisions to leave Unity for engines like Godot or, if commercial, Unreal/Epic.