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

[friedmud]

Wow - what a bunch of clueless posters. Everyone read this:

http://www.fsf.org/news/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement

It explains exactly why the GPL license is incompatible with the App store. The general idea is that Apple puts further restrictions on your use of a binary... which is disallowed by the GPL.

That's all this is... it's just a license incompatibility.

It's not Apple being evil or Nokia.. or VLC or the FSF or Richard Stallman... it's just an incompatibility of licenses. Apple dictates certain terms... and those terms aren't compatible... therefore it's a no go.

Apple can either change it's terms to allow for something different (selectable by the apps author I would suppose) or VLC must change their license (or create a version of the code licensed under different terms). Note that VLC doing this is EXTREMELY unlikely... for one, because there are thousands of contributors that would each have to sign off on the relicense and two because they actually _like_ having the restrictions of the GPL in place so that VLC can't get used in ways they don't like.

It's also hard to see Apple giving alternative terms options to authors.... so the only logical conclusion is that it will get pulled.

It's not Apple's "fault" any more than it's "VLC's fault"... it's just a consequence of the two group's licenses...

 

[Jeff321]

Thanks for the warning; downloaded.

 

[racer1441]

More of this open source hippy BS. No wonder no one takes them seriously.

 

[timbloom]

Completely agree. I also feel this will come back to bite them in the ass as they are claiming that Apple has broken the GPL license but in fact the Author, Applidium, has broken Apple's developer licensing agreement first by not having the legal right to publish the App based on the agreement. Also Apple removes itself (can't remember the correct legal term) from being liable in cases like this. My guess is Apple says screw it and leaves it on to make a point, the only party that will lose is Applidium and FSF. who knows though

This.

It is the developer's responsibility to make sure they have the proper licenses to the code THEY are using to put into THEIR app for use on Apple's store. If Apple gets confirmation that the developer didn't have permission to use the code, or the code violated any licenses, they have a moral obligation to suspend sales until the parties responsible make their license fit the ecosystem they're trying to shoehorn it into.

I love VLC as a desktop app, and I hope they will continue to develop it on iOS. But, honestly, it's not Apple's job to make sure GPL'ed software works in their iOS ecosystem. That is the responsibility of the licensee and licensor. Apple would be wise to allow the developers to opt-out of the DRM scheme if the app itself is free. Providing re-distribution, or even support of any kind, of that DRM-free iOS app apart from their app store isn't morally their responsibility.

 

[friedmud]

Honestly, on this issue, who cares what FSF thinks? While FSF likes making stirs about freedom---maybe to capture fundraising attention, but who knows?---in this case it is adding restrictions. FSF is totally out to lunch.

Don't misunderstand. I am all about free software, but I use also lots and lots of paid software I license from developers because I don't want the poor quality usability of Linux. I use a lot of open source software, including VLC, Handbrake and the most amazing TeX typesetting system, part of which Adobe uses in its InDesign application, which I don't use. I also contribute work to open source projects. So I am not an open source detractor or freeloader. Not at all.

However, FSF has way too many people thinking it has legal knowledge. The media gives it way too much credence. FSF is not the final voice on anything, ever. If you read its logic on this, you see it is missing the point. FSF is compromised by its general position opposing the use of OSX or the iPhone. Read its homepage.

VLC for Apple mobil products is available for redistribution. That's what really annoys FSF. That Apple allows VLC on the iTunes App store does not change the native licensing of VLC. FSF is wrong on this. FSF is acting like an imperialist on this issue, thinking it is correct and attempting to force its rule on everyone else.

The problem with FSF is its political philosophy. It wants all software to be free, yet, it begs for money online. "Don't pay for software," it says, "send your money to FSF." Also, it is compromised by its general opposition to Apple selling any software. Because it lives by ideology, rather than humanity, FSF has lost its mind on this issue. Lets hope FSF gets the message and shuts up, or, removes its interest from the VLC project and slithers into a corner to suck on a free beer.

You claim to contribute to open source projects... yet you don't understand what the word "Free" in "Free Software Foundation" stand for. Here's a clue: it has nothing to do with money.

When people talk about Open Source Software (note the capital lettering) they are referring to a specific set of licenses that are blessed by the Open Source Initiative ( http://opensource.org/ ). All of these licenses have a common goal of protecting the _FREEdom_ of both code developers and users. Said differently... the licenses protect the _rights_ of code developers and users to distribute and modify the code.

Note that Open Source Software and "free" software can be sold for money (and often are! Just look at box sets of Linux distros!). Selling Open Source Software is _not_ against the licenses... the only thing that is? Restricting the rights of those who either develop or use the software.

And that's the situation we have here... Apple's terms dictate certain restrictions... and they are incompatible with the particular OSS license in use by VLC (the GPL v2).

The FSF is an entity that tries to help people who have distributed software under OSS licenses enforce those licenses. This is of great benefit because those people are often small groups that can't afford pricey lawyers to fight people who infringe on the license (I'm looking at you TiVo!). The FSF is just doing what it's supposed to here... helping VLC enforce their license. This isn't the FSF's fault... and has nothing to do with their "interpretation" of anything.... it is all a legal matter.

 

[JordanNZ]

Wow - what a bunch of clueless posters. Everyone read this:

http://www.fsf.org/news/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement

It explains exactly why the GPL license is incompatible with the App store. The general idea is that Apple puts further restrictions on your use of a binary... which is disallowed by the GPL.

That's all this is... it's just a license incompatibility.

It's not Apple being evil or Nokia.. or VLC or the FSF or Richard Stallman... it's just an incompatibility of licenses. Apple dictates certain terms... and those terms aren't compatible... therefore it's a no go.

Apple can either change it's terms to allow for something different (selectable by the apps author I would suppose) or VLC must change their license (or create a version of the code licensed under different terms). Note that VLC doing this is EXTREMELY unlikely... for one, because there are thousands of contributors that would each have to sign off on the relicense and two because they actually _like_ having the restrictions of the GPL in place so that VLC can't get used in ways they don't like.

It's also hard to see Apple giving alternative terms options to authors.... so the only logical conclusion is that it will get pulled.

It's not Apple's "fault" any more than it's "VLC's fault"... it's just a consequence of the two groups licenses...

This is now out of date, which is why the issue is more complex.

 

[timbloom]

More of this open source hippy BS. No wonder no one takes them seriously.

You do know that most of the core OS on the Mac is open source software, right?

 

[JordanNZ]

And that's the situation we have here... Apple's terms dictate certain restrictions... and they are incompatible with the particular OSS license in use by VLC (the GPL v2).

Apple's terms have CHANGED... They may not be incompatible anymore.

 

[Rajani Isa]

Wait, so the FSF is arguing that a developer cannot give away its own software as it sees fit?

LMFAO

The problem is, this is not a single-developer project.

One of the MANY developers is objecting.

FSF is just jumping on the bandwagon.

 

[friedmud]

Just one more thing... I've seen several comments in this thread to the tune of: "Why are they using GPL when it won't allow a huger userbase access to the software?"

The thing is... people that develop Open Source Software have a TON of different motives for doing so. One might be fun... another fame... and others just to see if they can. What they all have in common is that they want to create an _open_ environment where people can do as they please with the results of the work... provided that they don't restrict what other people can do with the work further down the chain... ie they want to protect the rights of everyone who wants to use that software.

A lot of these projects don't give a rats ass about "usershare" or any such corporate speak... they are more interested in words like "community" and "sharing". If a particular software platform (ie the App store) doesn't supply a stream of people looking to be good citizens of the "community" then many projects simply won't care... and others will vehemently fight against their software being used on that platform (as is the case here). In their eyes that platform is not helping the project at all... regardless of how many "users" there might be on that platform.

 

[timbloom]

The problem is, this is not a single-developer project.

One of the MANY developers is objecting.

FSF is just jumping on the bandwagon.

At the same time, if they let one licensee slide under official watch what's to stop a future entity from using it as a precedent to further violate the terms of the license in a way that may not be so end-user friendly.

 

[friedmud]

Apple's terms have CHANGED... They may not be incompatible anymore.

Interesting... I haven't seen an analysis of the change terms... but it still seems like the main restriction is in place... ie that you can't install a binary you get from the store on more than 5 machines... which is in direct contradiction to the GPL.

As long as that term stands... the GPL is incompatible with the App store (as far as I can tell).

Have you seen anyone from OSI or FSF talk about the new app store terms yet?

 

[JordanNZ]

Interesting... I haven't seen an analysis of the change terms... but it still seems like the main restriction is in place... ie that you can't install a binary you get from the store on more than 5 machines... which is in direct contradiction to the GPL.

As long as that term stands... the GPL is incompatible with the App store (as far as I can tell).

Have you seen anyone from OSI or FSF talk about the new app store terms yet?

I don't think FSF even know they've changed... Or bothered to look.
Have a read...

http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-November/077457.html

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

No, a developer is arguing that his code submissions were made under the GPL and that the terms of the license are being violated by current App Store policies, thus his copyrights are being infringed upon.

Huh?

Both the developer and distributor of VLC both want it available on the iPhone/iPad through the App Store.

The FSF != VLC

Now, VLC does use the GPL and a 3rd party (not the developer or the distributor) is arguing that a company is violating its own licensing.

Again, the FSF != VLC

How you don't see the ****ed up logic is beyond me.

 

[macbook123]

Question: Did anybody get the sound of movies to work within this app? I didn't, so found it basically useless.

 

[Kieranic]

"Yep, that's right. We submitted the app to the store and now we're gonna sue you for copyright infringement! ******* yeah!"

Why submit it, knowing Apple's going to do this, then send them a notice for copyright infringement all because it's not "open" or some crap. Who ever sent the notice is indeed a wacko.

On the other hand, I downloaded it today since I might be getting an iPad next year, but this is seriously stupid (I don't even know why I downloaded it considering almost all of my video is in .m4v format).

 

[MacPioneer]

Does anybody else find it amusing that, flying under the radar of all this, virtually all software running on Macs and iOS devices is compiled by GCC? (Although that appears about to change).

I met RMS at the first Hackers Conference, in 1984, where he had nice things to say about me (for releasing MacTEP for free), until he realized I had done it only because I thought it was too simple and limited to charge money for. He was perturbed to learn that I had ambitions to develop a commercial product (which I did).

Three years later, when I was the developer support guy at NeXT, I brought Stallman in to meet Steve and the NeXT programmers and sealed the deal whereby the NeXT box and the NextStep framework (which are the ancestors of OSX and Cocoa) would use the Gnu compiler. Irony, thy name is FSF.

 

[Rajani Isa]

Huh?

Both the developer and distributor of VLC both want it available on the iPhone/iPad through the App Store.

The FSF != VLC

Now, VLC does use the GPL and a 3rd party (not the developer or the distributor) is arguing that a company is violating its own licensing.

Again, the FSF != VLC

How you don't see the ****ed up logic is beyond me.

Why submit it, knowing Apple's going to do this, then send them a notice for copyright infringement all because it's not "open" or some crap. Who ever sent the notice is indeed a wacko.

VLC is a Multi-developer application/project. Of all those involved in developing VLC, only a subset were involved in the port to iOS, although most seemed to agree with it. However, it is one of the previous developers (now with FSF on his side, as the ACLU would be on someone lodging a Civil rights dispute) who was not involved in the port who has issue with Apple.

Read the thread!

 

[kironin]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

Yet haters will somehow blame Apple for this..

Nope, blaming FSF for this. What a bunch of yahoos.

 

[ranReloaded]

I always wondered how these open source/free software apps make it to the AppStore... Who pays the $99/year fee?

 

[res1233]

I like VLC, and i'll keep using it on my iPhone till the day it breaks on iOS, even if it's removed from the store. Nobody but third parties could benefit from this, in other words, neither Apple, nor VideoLAN. Parts of iOS are licensed under the GPL (source). So, it's possible that Apple will leave it on the store.

 

[res1233]

I always wondered how these open source/free software apps make it to the AppStore... Who pays the $99/year fee?

They might just pay for it out of their own pockets... Not sure, but $99 a year isn't exactly bank breaking.

 

[kironin]

Way to actively reduce the number of potential users of your software. I doubt this guy will be very popular around the development table if he succeeds.

In other news, this is a very good argument to licensing under BSD rather than GPL.

Bingo!

 

[llamatronique]

However, it is one of the previous developers (now with FSF on his side, as the ACLU would be on someone lodging a Civil rights dispute) who was not involved in the port who has issue with Apple.

The GPL is it's very own check mate.

When the GPL v2 was written, the concept of DRM such as Fairplay actually turning out to be a benefit was not conceived, and so while the code released under the GPL has evolved and the ecosystem into which it may be distributed such as the App store, the license has not and cannot unless it is relicensed.

[IANAL]

However, I have my doubts that the restrictions quoted by the FSF are in fact valid, the wording to me is nebulous enough with respect to the distribution of binaries. The FSF's _opinion_ relates to the 'additional restrictions' clause, but from my reading that clause is entirely without context. They claim that this relates to binary distribution, but that's not explicit.

There is nothing that I can see which specifically grants rights to binary distribution, only source distribution, i.e. restrictions on binary distribution are not specified, but neither are freedoms, and so additional restrictions should only be applied to those distribution rights explicitly stated.

Section 3 states you may distribute in a binary form provided certain rights regarding source code are preserved. It does not stipulate how.

Anyway, preventing users from running an application on a particular platform because of ideology is not what I'd call free.

BSD FTW!

 

[aristotle]

The Free software Foundation has forgotten why people used to write software in the first place or why open source software started out. Sharing code is pointless if end users are not able to use the programs created for the code. Without making it accessible to end users, development becomes just a bunch of meaningless mental masturbation.

If you care about sharing and collaborating on code then you should also care about sharing the final result with as many users as possible and not deliberately discriminate against platforms. The FSF is opposed to OS X and the iOS. They are ideologues and cannot be reasoned with. Everyone needs to stop giving people like RMS any attention and possibly seek to remove people like him from the leadership of the FSF to get them back to their original goals and ideals.

Removing VLC from the App store goes against the idea of "sharing" software with end users. End users have absolutely no interest in the politics of the FSF or the GPL licences because the GPL only applies to people working with the code. These hosers are not sticking it to the "man". They are only hurting themselves and depriving end users from using the software.

What is the point of creating VLC if you don't let people have it?