VLC is open source, distributed by VideoLAN non-profit and is totally non-commercial. The only money received by the non-profit is through donations.

I didn't express that well: In copyright terms, if you compete with commercial; or acquire money via a side-channel then it's "commercial" ... what I was trying to express was that it occupies a space where it's serious software and that damage to it's reputation should be treated just as seriously as damage to a sold product from a for-profit.

Apologies.

Thanks for your hard work on VLC. I love it. Throwing you a quick donation so you have something good happening during an otherwise rough time.

@ you and any lawyers

I know you probably don't want to go to some long-term battle in the courts with any of these groups. What about a libel suit in small claims court against each one? I wonder if that's even possible. If so, start with one to keep time/costs down, then (if victorious) hit the others either one at a time or simultaneously. At the least, the wins raise you some funding while providing some small deterrence from them doing it again.

Yes, hence they don't have a lawyer ontap, which was kinda the point I was making. The education (what I'm going to call it) that they could bestow upon these bismershing media outlets, would fund much Open Source work for VLC.

You say “they don’t have a lawyer” I don’t know if you realize you’re addressing the lead developer and president of VLC. I think he may be quite a bit more aware of his org’s ability and desire to retain legal counsel than all of us.

I was not, I am now blush. You're right of course.