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

[KnightWRX]

Actually - I personally think it does matter.

[in my best legal voice...] "Your honour, goes to motive."

It matters only to conspiracy theorists. The plain fact is many Nokia employees are open source contributors, be it for their line of work (think TrollTech and the QT framework) or in their personal life.

There is no underlying motive here.

I agree, why does it have to be so complicated. VLC is a free application, the source code is available for free. Why is the such a complicated license agreement required?

If the software was really free this would not be an issue.

If VLC wasn't GPL'ed, Microsoft could take the code, call it Windows Media Player, add support for their proprietary stuff into it and distribute it without ever sharing the source to their modifications.

This is the freedom the GPL promotes. To say the GPL is anti-Freedom is to not understand who exactly benefits from the Freedom it provides. Hint : It's not about developer freedom. It's about the code itself.

Arguing about opensource on Macrumors is like talking to a brick wall. Too many people not involved in the open source community trying to talk about things they don't understand.

 

[ksgant]

It matters only to conspiracy theorists. The plain fact is many Nokia employees are open source contributors, be it for their line of work (think TrollTech and the QT framework) or in their personal life.

There is no underlying motive here.

Seriously? You know this for a fact? Your sources please.

Arguing about opensource on Macrumors is like talking to a brick wall. Too many people not involved in the open source community trying to talk about things they don't understand.

You're right...maybe you should just stop posting. It's just hypocritical of the FSF to talk about freedoms (as in speech), while restricting so much. The "protect the code at all costs...including innovation and creativity" attitude that Stallman and Doctorow and others keep spouting just need to go away. There are ways of protecting the code from Microsoft (ooooo...evil evil Microsoft, they want to steal everything) and not make it so restrictive that people can't get things done.

 

[KnightWRX]

Seriously? You know this for a fact? Your sources please.

I think the burden of proof falls on the people claiming there is a motive here. Until such a motive is proven, I will stick to "no underlying motive".

You're right...maybe you should just stop posting. It's just hypocritical of the FSF to talk about freedoms (as in speech), while restricting so much.

Again, they aren't restricting the Freedoms they preach about. They are restricting your perceived Freedom to close down the code that is GPL'ed. The GPL is actually less restrictive than copyright law in this regard even.

It's seriously flawed to argue your position. You're arguing for developer Freedom, not code freedom.

Understand. The. Position.

 

[480951]

I downloaded it in just in case. Even prior to getting an iOS device I started stocking up on apps that may be pulled.

 

[kiljoy616]

I downloaded it in just in case. Even prior to getting an iOS device I started stocking up on apps that may be pulled.

Why would App be pulled, only reason this one is having issues is because of the open source issue is been interpreted, I am sure this issue will sort it self out in short time.

I have it so if they pull it no big deal, It works perfect and I now use it on my shiny new "I Kill You" iPad.

Other Apps pulled? Do you have inside knowledge of other Apps been pulled.

 

[oliversl]

FSF is FUDing, oh boy ... this is serious

 

[priamo]

Heh, welcome to Apple closed world.

The rotten apple is getting worse each day .

 

[priamo]

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

Hahahaha, pwnd!!!!.

It never ceases to amaze me the ignorance of apple users outside their tiny universe x___D.

 

[DannyVegas]

RMS and the FSF

The FSF is completely out of touch with the reality of how people actually use software. It has become laughable that they, allegedly an altruistic organization, resort to the same level of FUD and spin that they constantly chastise other originations for.

With each version of the GPL, it becomes less free and more about forwarding Stallman’s BS hippy agenda. It seems that he and his cronies intend this to be a zero sum game: you either buy into our entire political agenda in toto or you are not in compliance. The GPL v3 bars the use of any GPL’ed software in the creation of DRM systems. It’s very clear that the GPL is more about a warped ideology than it is about people being able to use software.

 

[Steelers7510]

Doubt that I will ever really use this but I went ahead and downloaded it anyway. Maybe I will find a good use for it...

 

[donny77]

There are ways of protecting the code from Microsoft (ooooo...evil evil Microsoft, they want to steal everything) and not make it so restrictive that people can't get things done.

In truth, this really isn't an issue of the FSF or the GPL. The REAL issue, is every developer owns the copyright of what they contribute. Should this be the case? Would it be better to turn over copyright to the "project" maybe a group of say 5? If I write a one line bug fix, should I be able to stop re-licensing of the program unless they remove my fix? Not to mention my fix on it's own is nothing. It depends on the code preceding and following it. The problem isn't the GPL, VLC could dual license. The problem is you can't track down every contributor, or their estate, and get permission. It's an unworkable situation. It's why Novell can't open source the Unix codebase.

 

[goosnarrggh]

In truth, this really isn't an issue of the FSF or the GPL. The REAL issue, is every developer owns the copyright of what they contribute. Should this be the case? Would it be better to turn over copyright to the "project" maybe a group of say 5? If I write a one line bug fix, should I be able to stop re-licensing of the program unless they remove my fix? Not to mention my fix on it's own is nothing. It depends on the code preceding and following it. The problem isn't the GPL, VLC could dual license. The problem is you can't track down every contributor, or their estate, and get permission. It's an unworkable situation. It's why Novell can't open source the Unix codebase.

One of the troubles with this system is international applicability of copyright reassignment. For example, the German equivalent to copyright, Urheberrecht, states that copyright is inextricably tied to authorship. It can only belong to the natural human being who actually created the work or contributed the modification. German copyright cannot be transferred to any other entity except through inheritance, and there is no such thing as corporate ownership of a German copyright.

 

[KnightWRX]

In truth, this really isn't an issue of the FSF or the GPL. The REAL issue, is every developer owns the copyright of what they contribute. Should this be the case? Would it be better to turn over copyright to the "project" maybe a group of say 5? If I write a one line bug fix, should I be able to stop re-licensing of the program unless they remove my fix? Not to mention my fix on it's own is nothing. It depends on the code preceding and following it. The problem isn't the GPL, VLC could dual license. The problem is you can't track down every contributor, or their estate, and get permission. It's an unworkable situation. It's why Novell can't open source the Unix codebase.

That's why the FSF requires any code contributions to the GNU projects to also assign copyrights. Projects can use this method to retain a modicum of control over the licensing of the project without having to track down multiple contributors, some of which might have gone off the map completely.

Again, no one forces the GPL on anyone. Copyright owners choose the license as one that meets their needs to insure the Freedom of their code, and 3rd party developers can either accept to use GPL'ed code to speed up their project or rewrite it from scratch if they don't agree to the terms.

No one is entitled to a free (as in beer) lunch.

 

[Looon]

I like how so many people have downloaded it just in case it gets pulled. If you had no use for it before why would you miss it if it gets pulled.

I guess there really is such a thing as stupid questions.

 

[KJ500]

VLC on my iPad is totally buggy - it's crashed and burned while playing movies several times.

I was also underwhelmed witht the VLC player on Ipad. If it's gone, no great loss.

 

[firewood]

Publicity Stunt?

Has anyone considered that this is just a big publicity stunt, for the VLC developers to get fame, thus pay raises, juicier consulting contracts, date hotter women, etc., once their names are in the news?

 

[D'Illusion]

I guess there really is such a thing as stupid questions.

Downloading an app you didn't want or need before just because it might become unavailable, that's what's stupid. VLC becoming unavailable over some stupid licensing (dis)agreement is also stupid.

 

[JeffDM]

I agree, why does it have to be so complicated. VLC is a free application, the source code is available for free. Why is the such a complicated license agreement required?

If the software was really free this would not be an issue.

It's not that simple, because the idea and implementation of copyrights are complicated.

 

[Jarland]

For one thing, this is why I don't support the open source community. They clearly updated the GPL in an attempt to "stick it to the man" by trying to make it incompatible with what they consider to be "closed" devices. So the idea here is open source free software for everyone...unless you own a device that they don't like. Rather childish if you ask me.

Beyond that, I want to see someone take it to court. The GPL is not incompatible with the app store. Is open source software for Windows incompatible because Windows is not free and must be purchased (legally, at least) prior to installing the software? Similarly, anyone can compile their own applications to launch on the iPhone for a small fee of $99. This is an option provided by Apple, indiscriminately, available to any owner of an iOS device. Provide access to your xcode project and you're done. All it takes is creative wording.

 

[JAT]

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.

Users don't care. Pulling the software hurts only the users. Apple purports to be user-driven. While that may be debated, the arguments in this thread are a complete non-issue to users. Unless the app goes away. Both sides would be doing a disservice to the actual customer, apparently just so one guy and the FSF can be "right". Congrats to them.

No, they aren't. That's the point. The developer in question here argues (and the FSF backs him up) that the code isn't free to be modified because anyone that wishes to do so will not be able to install and run their modifications without first going through Apple for approval.

This is an added restriction in this developer's eyes and is thus incompatible with the GPL as worded.

Why? The iDevices don't have a real means for manipulation of app code, anyway. My 1st-gen can't even run the app! So it should be available from their website for use on computers, peripheral to the AppStore. Isn't it? Sure, it's a special case due to the distribution mechanism, but certainly surmountable.

From the user standpoint, this is just whiny developers who didn't get their way. (I'll bet he stomped his foot, too!) And this happens to be a multi-developer product, and only one is whiny. We don't give a damn.

 

[Alan(UK)]

The GPL V2 is completely unenforceable.

Take this clause for instance:

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.

The (idiotic) licence is unenforceable? Nobody has even tried to challenge it. A tech savvy lawyer will know that if the licence is unenforceable, then you have no licence. Anything that you do with the software is subject to copyright law. You have no other rights.

Neither you nor anyone else is required to accept the licence. Even if you do not choose to comply with its terms, you are given certain rights to use the software anyway. Yes it is an idiotic licence - millions of lines of code given away free - you could run a whole business with that - just like Google!

If you do choose to accept the licence you may distribute the software or use it as the basis of your own product - PROVIDING YOU COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THE LICENCE.

Regarding your other questions - you CANNOT change the licence without permission (even from v2 to v3) - you have exactly the same right to fail to run a Linux binary under MS Windows as the person that you received it from (that is the whole point of the licence - when you distribute the software, you must give the recipient the same rights that you received) - BTW the licence does not provide any warranty that the software even runs at all.

As for the DRM. GPLv2 does not specifically address that. Apple is free to do what it likes providing it complies with the licence. But then that is what this thread is discussing.

 

[KnightWRX]

Why? The iDevices don't have a real means for manipulation of app code, anyway. My 1st-gen can't even run the app! So it should be available from their website for use on computers, peripheral to the AppStore. Isn't it? Sure, it's a special case due to the distribution mechanism, but certainly surmountable.

I already explained how it is surmountable. There's basically 2 options :

- Convince this guy that his rights are not being infringed so he drops his complaint.
- Rewrite his contributions, essentially removing them from the project.

From the user standpoint, this is just whiny developers who didn't get their way. (I'll bet he stomped his foot, too!) And this happens to be a multi-developer product, and only one is whiny. We don't give a damn.

I think it's the other way. It's you who's whining and stomping your foot. The fact is he may be one of many, but his time is as valuable as others. He contributed to the project knowing it had a GPL v2 license, and he's entitled (he is, he put time in, effort, knowledge) to respect of his copyright. You aren't entitled to anything. What effort did you put in ?

He's a solution for you :

- Take my previous 2nd solution, and rewrite his portions yourself. Can't do it ? Why do you think you're entitled to call him whiny then ?

Would you be happy if I said you were whiny if your employer suddenly decided not to pay you for your time at work ? This guy's renumeration for writing this software is basically his copyright. You want to strip him of that.

Again, why I hate open source discussions on Macrumors, people here just don't understand the community and their efforts.

 

[krischik]

There are ways of protecting the code from Microsoft (ooooo...evil evil Microsoft, they want to steal everything) and not make it so restrictive that people can't get things done.

Right and while we are at it get rid of the protection of garden fences so I can better harvest my neighbours carrots to get things done i.E. sell them on the market.

If six farmer create a farming community in which each member can freely harvest and sell produce and you are not a member then you can't just climb the fence and harvest and sell the produce. Or worse: Call for the fence to be torn down.

Even if there is a market place who's rules are incompatible with the six farmers believes. Even it it means you can't buy the produce at all. It is the farmers produce and they decide what to do with it and which rules you need to obey to be become a member of there community.

Back to the topic at hand: GPL is a community and harvesting and selling (GPL explicitly allows selling) is restricted to members of the community. And membership is restricted to those who are prepared to obey the GPL licence.

If you are not a member, don't want to play by our rules. Tough luck, play elsewhere.

M.

 

[gnasher729]

I already explained how it is surmountable. There's basically 2 options :

- Convince this guy that his rights are not being infringed so he drops his complaint.
- Rewrite his contributions, essentially removing them from the project.

Not quite correct. There are three options:

- Convince yourself and possibly a judge that this guy's rights are not being infringed.
- Convince the guy that he should allow the app being in the iOS store even though he believes that his rights are infringed.
- Rewrite his contributions, essentially removing them from the project.

I personally think that he is wrong, mostly because it is not Apple doing the distributing, but the people who put the application onto the store. And they don't stop you in any way from taking the source code and porting it to Windows Mobile or whatever it is called, or trying to put a different version onto the iOS store.

 

[KnightWRX]

I personally think that he is wrong, mostly because it is not Apple doing the distributing, but the people who put the application onto the store. And they don't stop you in any way from taking the source code and porting it to Windows Mobile or whatever it is called, or trying to put a different version onto the iOS store.

The guy sent the complaint to Apple so they would remove the app from the store. They are the distributor, just like Ingram Micro distributes Apple stuff for Apple.

As for not stopping you in any way from porting it to Windows Mobile, that's not enough for the GPL. The App Store does add restrictions in the needing a digital signature from Apple or at the very least a developer certificate in order to compile and install the app. I quoted the relevant portions of the GPL and the FSF blog on the matter clarifies this even more.