--- title: "The License Detective: How One Man Tracked Down 350 People to Re-License VLC" author: "Cutsio Team" date: "2026-05-14" lastmod: "2026-05-14" category: "Video Technology" excerpt: "When JB Kempf decided to re-license VLC from GPL to LGPL, he had to find every single person who had ever contributed code — over 350 people across dozens of countries. One of them had died. His father was a factory worker who had no idea his son's code was in one of the most popular applications on earth." tags: ["VLC", "Open Source", "Licensing", "JB Kempf", "GPL", "LGPL"] --- ## Why did JB Kempf need to re-license VLC? JB Kempf needed to re-license the core VLC engine (libVLC) from GPL to LGPL so that commercial applications could embed VLC without being forced to open source their entire product — a change that would enable game developers, hardware manufacturers, and mobile apps to use VLC's engine legally. The GPL license is a powerful tool for open source projects. It ensures that anyone who modifies and distributes the code must also release their modifications under the same license. This is called copyleft — it uses copyright law to guarantee that the software remains free. The Linux kernel uses GPL, and it has worked well for that project. But GPL creates problems for certain use cases. A game developer who wants to play video inside their game engine cannot use a GPL library without releasing the entire game's source code. A hardware manufacturer who wants to integrate video playback into their device cannot use GPL code without opening their firmware. An iOS developer cannot distribute GPL code through the Apple App Store at all, because Apple's terms of service conflict with the GPL's requirements. The LGPL — Library GPL — solves this. It allows the library to be linked into proprietary applications without forcing the entire application to be open source. The developer only needs to release any modifications they make to the LGPL library itself. The rest of their application can remain proprietary. JB wanted this change for two reasons. First, it would allow commercial companies to use VLC's engine, which would make the technology more widely adopted. Second, it would enable a consulting business model around VLC integration — a way to sustain the project financially without monetizing the users. The problem was that you cannot just change an open source project's license unilaterally. Every contributor holds copyright on their contributions. To change the license, you need every single contributor's permission. ## How many contributors did he have to track down? JB had to contact over 350 people who had contributed code to VLC over its entire history — scattered across dozens of countries, speaking many languages, and in some cases no longer involved with the project or even reachable through their original contact information. Open source projects like VLC do not require copyright assignment. Each contributor retains the copyright on their individual contributions. This is different from projects that force contributors to sign a copyright assignment agreement, which gives the project owner the ability to re-license unilaterally. VLC's model is a true community project where copyright stays with the individual. This made the re-licensing effort a detective project. JB had to go through the entire commit history of VLC, identify every person who had contributed code, find their current contact information, explain what he was doing, and ask them to agree to the license change. The list included people from all over the world. Some were still active in the project. Some had moved on years ago. Some had changed careers, countries, or contact information. Some had died. Most people did not care about the license detail. "Most of the time they do not even care," JB recalls. "They wanted to help VLC." They agreed quickly when they understood what was being asked. But a significant minority were difficult to find. And a few cases were devastating. ## What happened when JB tracked down the factory worker? JB traveled to a factory where one of the contributors' fathers worked, only to discover that the contributor had died, and he had to explain to a grieving parent that his son's code was used by billions of people around the world. The story is one of the most human moments in open source history. JB had traced a contributor through old email addresses and online profiles, eventually finding a relative who told him the contributor had passed away. The code was still in VLC. The copyright was still held by the deceased contributor. Without their agreement, the re-licensing could not proceed. JB found out where the father worked — a factory. He went there. He was a young man at the time, showing up at a stranger's workplace to talk about open source software licenses. "I arrived to the work of a person who was a factory worker," JB remembers. "I said, 'I need you to sign that,' because it was his son who died who actually wrote the code." The father had no idea his son's code was part of one of the most widely used software applications on the planet. He was not a programmer. He worked in a factory. His son had written code as a hobby, as a passion, and that code was now shipping to billions of people. "I had to explain all those types of open source meaning," JB says quietly. "No, I was not a company trying to rip out the two lines or five lines that that guy did." The father agreed. He signed. It was one of the most difficult conversations JB has ever had. "I was a lot younger, right? It was fourteen years ago. I was almost in tears." ## What does this story reveal about open source communities? This story reveals that open source projects are not just collections of code — they are collections of human beings, each of whom has contributed a piece of themselves to something larger, and the license that governs that code is a social contract that the entire community agrees on. The license is the one thing the community unites around. People in FFmpeg and VLC come from all over the world, with different religions, political beliefs, and backgrounds. They disagree on many things. But they agree on the license. "The license is a social contract in terms of Rousseau de facto of the community," JB explains. "The community does not agree on much besides the license. People go around, discuss around because of the license." This is why changing the license is such a sensitive process. It is not a legal technicality. It is renegotiating the fundamental agreement that holds the community together. Doing it without everyone's consent would destroy the trust that makes the project work. "There are some projects who do not respect that, and they do re-licensing a bit aggressively," JB says. "But it destroyed the whole heart of the community." ## How does open source licensing affect video editors? Open source licensing affects video editors because the tools and libraries they depend on are governed by these licenses, and understanding the difference between permissive and copyleft licenses helps editors make informed choices about their software stack. When an editor uses FFmpeg through their NLE, they are benefiting from LGPL-licensed code. The NLE can link against FFmpeg without being forced to open source its own code. This is why every major editing application can use FFmpeg internally. When an editor uses VLC, they are using a GPL-licensed application on desktop (LGPL for the core library). The player itself remains fully open source. No one can take VLC, modify it, and distribute a closed-source version. When an editor encounters a tool licensed under AGPL, they need to be careful. The AGPL extends the GPL's requirements to software accessed over a network. If a cloud service uses AGPL code, the service provider may need to release their modifications. The practical impact for most editors is minimal. The licenses that matter for their workflow — FFmpeg's LGPL, VLC's GPL, the various permissive licenses for libraries — are well understood and widely compatible. But understanding the licensing landscape helps editors appreciate why some tools are free, why some require attribution, and why some cannot be used in certain commercial contexts. | License | Requirements | Example Project | |---|---|---| | MIT / BSD | Attribution required | Many JavaScript libraries | | Apache 2.0 | Attribution + patent protection | Android | | LGPL | Modifications to library must be open source | FFmpeg, libVLC | | GPL | Entire derivative work must be open source | VLC (desktop), Linux kernel | | AGPL | Network use counts as distribution | MongoDB, some SaaS tools |

Built on open foundations. Respecting every contribution.

The same care that went into VLC's licensing — respecting every contributor's rights — goes into Cutsio's approach to your footage. Your media stays yours. Export clean XML to any NLE. No lock-in, no hidden terms. Just excellent video pre-processing.

Try Cutsio Free

No credit card required. 60 minutes of free processing.

## FAQ **What is the difference between GPL and LGPL?** GPL requires that any derivative work be distributed under the same license. LGPL allows the library to be linked into proprietary applications without forcing the entire application to be open source — only modifications to the library itself must be shared. **Can an open source license be changed without all contributors' consent?** No, not in a community project where each contributor retains copyright on their work. Every contributor's consent is required to change the license. Projects that require copyright assignment can change licenses more easily. **Why did VLC need different licenses on different platforms?** VLC uses GPL on Windows, Mac, and Linux. On iOS, it uses the Mozilla Public License because Apple's App Store terms are incompatible with the GPL. The core libVLC engine is LGPL everywhere. **Does changing a license destroy an open source community?** It can, if done without proper consent. The license is the social contract that holds the community together. Forcing a license change without everyone's agreement is seen as a betrayal of trust. **How does open source licensing affect my video editing workflow?** For most editors, the licensing has no direct impact. The libraries your NLE uses are properly licensed. Understanding the licenses helps you make informed choices about which tools to adopt and how to use them in commercial work.