Last Chance to Get VLC for iPhone/iPad? Likely to be Pulled from App Store?

[tkermit]

Because in the letter of the law they are right and if they complain Apple will be obliged to yank it. A precedent has been set with another piece of GPL software.

And the person making a fuss about this knows it will likely create outcry on the web/blogs/gadget sites (and the majority won't derstand the subtleties and complexities of software licensees and the GPL). This will damage Apple's PR and further enforce the idea the Apple are over zealous and controlling.

And no one wins. There is another thread where others have contributed their views and it is explained in further detail.

Like I wrote in that other thread, my interpretation differs from yours:

"Apple manages to keep VLC out of the app store, VLC being one of the [few free] media players on there that will play a wide variety of content from sources other than Apple. Yet Apple will still be seen as the good guy in the end, since they at least did approve the app and in the end, by finally pulling it from the store, only did what was legally required of them. Honi soit qui mal y pense."

If you assume, that Apple would rather not have VLC on the app store, then they actually now got someone to do the "dirty work" for them. But yeah, maybe I'm underestimating the negative effect on Apple's PR (and/or overestimating their dislike of apps like VLC) ...

 

[S.B.G]

Well I just downloaded it because everyone seems to like it. I've never seen it before and now that I have it, I have an excuse to buy a larger capacity iPhone next time! Woo hoo!

 

[Brradley]

Well that's pretty much what I asked. Why was Nokia brought into this conversation in the first place? To throw mud?

As he might be a Nokia fanboy, asked by company to get VLC off iDevices.

 

[elppa]

"Apple manages to keep VLC out of the app store, VLC being one of the [few free] media players on there that will play a wide variety of content from sources other than Apple. Yet Apple will still be seen as the good guy in the end, since they at least did approve the app and in the end, by finally pulling it from the store, only did what was legally required of them. Honi soit qui mal y pense."

Which gives you the better headline, given the current climate:

Apple fulfils legal obligation because one person out of the thousands of developers and users complained

or this one:

Apple is a drachion, controlling force yanking excellent, popular media player because it is open source and Apple isn't open, they are closed and evil.

See the second one reads far better.

Many people they only need to hear “Apple”, “pulled”, “open source” and they will run to their own conclusions.

 

[tkermit]

Which gives you the better headline, given the current climate[...]

OK, I'll give you that

 

[charlituna]

It's supposed to be free, so as long as it's free on the app store...

on the surface it makes sense. the only thing I can think of is the whole vetting by Apple etc to get the program on iOS. but I really can't see why that's such a horrid issue given that it passed quality control and Apple approved it, which means they don't care about someone else supporting formats they don't natively.

 

[elppa]

OK, I'll give you that

Cool.

=====

I really just shake my head at this. I know laws and principles are important and in the letter of the law they are absolutely correct.

But this just makes shake my head in anger and frustrated. Things shouldn't have to be like this. I just don't understand who it benefits. Apple? No, they want to sell iDevices, the more software they have that people want to use the better. Customers? No, they want to use the software. They will lose and excellent free, media player. The other VLC developers? Well surely one the most rewarding parts of contributing to a project like the iOS port (aside from the challenge itself) is seeing it being used every day.

I don't normally get as wound up by stories. But this one has.

 

[zonemster]

NOPE it WILL NOT FLY

Under the agreement with Apple, VLC is responsible for the distribution of the software, the App Store is just a vehicle for distribution, therefore it cannot be applied to the software itself but the maker of the program, If VLC agreed to the Apps store rules they should follow it, Although this argument will not apply in this situation either, because only part of the software is bound by the GPL, and the rest is work of the VLC, and again Apple is not responsible for the DMR injection thru the distributing vehicle if the software is at no charge to the end user.

This to me looks like "now win" situation any any part, and therefore the makers and the GPL will have to compromise on this, otherwise there will be law suit after, law suit, between major companies.

 

[paepcke]

As he might be a Nokia fanboy, asked by company to get VLC off iDevices.

Not only Fanboy. Nokia pay´s him a lot of money! That is his own statement!

And fact is, he kicked the ass of all of his VLC-coworkers how spend a lot of their lifetime to develop this iphone & the ipad version. And they do not got any money for that. And fact is the timing. He does not tried to stop this project in the early beta stages or after the first public apple store release. No, he waited until this app made progress and and new releases added stability and ipad support.

That´s a direct hit in the face of all other VLC open source developers how are working for free. And he is the only one how gets money from Nokia. Do you really think there is no relation?

 

[sjo]

As he might be a Nokia fanboy, asked by company to get VLC off iDevices.

Well as I wrote earlier, if a program cannot be distributed on Idevices without breaking the license under which the program was developed, it stays out of the Idevices. It really has nothing to do with Nokia and it actually has very little to do with the individual who reported it. He made contribution under belief that a certain license would be honored. If it isn't, the program that has his code in it cannot be distributed.

AFAIK, Apple itself is generally pretty strict in enforcing the licenses, so if Apple wants to have GPL programs in AppStore, Apple has to facilitate a mechanism under which the programs can be distributed there in compliance with GPL. It's really as simple as that.

 

[centauratlas]

You have to love this quotation from the developer "Thus, users of iOS-based devices would be deprived of VLC media player, as a consequence of the intransigently tight control Apple maintains over its mobile applications platform." (http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-October/077325.html)


You could say the same thing but in reverse: "Thus users of iOS-based devices would be deprived of VLC media player, as a consequence of the intransigently tight control the GPL [reportedly] maintains over this product."

If you want real freedom, put it in the public domain. Otherwise, do NOT complain when someone else (e.g. Apple here, people using the BSD license etc) wants to put different controls on what is done with their software or their App Store.

If the GPL was really about freedom, this would not be an issue, instead the GPL is about imposing SOMEONE'S VIEW of freedom on everyone who uses their product - and that is their right since it is their product. But getting on a high horse about Apple controlling their software and platform is hypocritical at best when the GPL does the same thing. For example, the BSD license would not have this issue. Don't get me wrong, I like many things about the GPL. It is great that there are competing licenses, but when one says the GPL is about freedom, one is misleading.

No one wins here - not the GPL, not consumers, not developers. Of course the "unless" part of the Apple AppStore license may make it moot, IF anyone chooses to challenge it. And I doubt Apple would waste its time doing so. That would be up to other developers of the software.

 

[Carlanga]

is this nokia's last stand in the smartphone market? dirty trickery? If Nokia didn't have anything to do w/ what the dev is saying, then they should give a statement saying that they didn't have anything to do w/ this at the least...

 

[elppa]

He does not tried to stop this project in the early beta stages

Well you could argue that he figured Apple wouldn't dare bundle it with FairPlay. But I think you'd have to be extremely naïve to think that would ever happen. I want to give this engineer benefit the of doubt, but it is kind of hard.

 

[Dr McKay]

As I've already gotten VLC on my iPad, can VLC or anyone force Apple to remove it from there, or release an update to break the app so it becomes useless to me.

Its a brilliant app, plays all my .avi's no fuss.

 

[paepcke]

Well you could argue that he figured Apple wouldn't dare bundle it with FairPlay. But I think you'd have to be extremely naïve to think that would ever happen. I want to give this engineer benefit the of doubt, but it is kind of hard.

Ok, now we have November, first AppStore release was early September. Thinking took quite a while?

 

[ImperialX]

VLC sucks anyway. AirVideo + Convert, then play in GoodReader. Win.

 

[J273]

Just downloaded..Just incase it gets pulled

 

[brianfast]

If every VLC code writer consented, VLC player could be distributed on app store.

 

[paepcke]

is this nokia's last stand in the smartphone market? dirty trickery? If Nokia didn't have anything to do w/ what the dev is saying, then they should give a statement saying that they didn't have anything to do w/ this at the least...

Nokia is dead. They do not care about the value of their consumer Brand anymore. They are in panic. They changing actually managers like clothes.

When Dinosaurs are dying it gets always nasty ...

 

[leroypants]

I am not sure if the paranoia apple zealots displaying in this topic is funny, pathetic, or just down right disturbing. Those claiming nokia had vlc pulled are on the same level as birthers and those claiming 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[aristotle]

The GPL V2 is completely unenforceable.

Take this clause for instance:

Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

Not only is it incompatible with modern operating systems with dynamically loading libraries and platform frameworks but by following the letter of this clause, you cannot upgrade the license of a product to GPL V3 because that license imposes "further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein".

You cannot take a binary compiled for windows and run it directly on linux or OS X or visa versa. That is a restriction is it not? What about all of that software under GPL that only runs on and can only be compiled on linux due to dependencies? Does that software violate that clause?

I hope some tech savvy lawyer challenges these idiotic licenses as being unenforceable.

The DRM is "REQUIRED" by the iOS platform in it's current form on non-jailbroken devices just like how binary formats and frameworks are required on other platforms. It is a security feature to prevent rogue software from running on iOS devices.

There is no specific mention of DRM in GPL v2. DRM is merely a means of protecting the BINARY whereas the GPL refers to the CODE. As long as you offer the CODE for distribution, I don't see how DRM is a violation of anything. There is nothing in the GPL specifying the binary file format be it ELF, A.OUT, Mach or something else and the DRM is just a layer on top of the app package.

 

[paepcke]

Leroypants, nobody stated that this was an common Nokia corporate agreed act, maybe yes, maybe no.

Fact is, that this guy get his money from Nokia. If Nokia dies, also his earnings will die. Maybe he done the math by his own. Maybe somebody helped him with an hint from legal department. We will never know.

But with this information in the background that his income relies on Nokia nobody can deny there is some kind of relation.

 

[elppa]

As I've already gotten VLC on my iPad, can VLC or anyone force Apple to remove it from there, or release an update to break the app so it becomes useless to me.

Its a brilliant app, plays all my .avi's no fuss.

Sure Apple has a kill switch (which unlike Google they have never used). Tethering apps, or those which had tethering functionality (via the back door) were pulled but they were never deleted. And I imagine Apple had some pressure from AT&T to do so. I don't think they would start using it for this case. So if you have it I imagine you are safe.

I am not sure if the paranoia apple zealots displaying in this topic is funny, pathetic, or just down right disturbing. Those claiming nokia had vlc pulled are on the same level as birthers and those claiming 9/11 was an inside job.

Very few people are claiming Nokia is behind it. It has been pointed out though that to our knowledge the only developer who has publicly complained thus far is a Nokia employee. That doesn't prove anything. But as others have pointed out - why now?

 

[baryon]

Two things:

1: Stupid licensing issues. They always cause problems. Why can't people just get along with common sense. (yes I know why and I know that this is a stupid question, but sometimes I feel like there's way too much unpractical bureaucracy everywhere)

2: Maybe this is just a good marketing strategy for VLC, as everyone will now download it. Even if it's free.

 

[Speedy2]

So, apps must not be on the AppStore because of the alleged 'freedom' the GPL grants. This is a perversion of the term 'freedom'. Just put the source code on the web already. Problem solved. But isn't that already the case? This is madness.