Some VLC developers (for Mac mainly), with the company Applidium, have ported VLC on iOS. Applidium published it on the store, for free.
Some developer complained (quite lately, btw...) afterwards and quoted a FSF analysis. Their analysis was totally wrong (spoke about redistribution), and based on old version of AppStore terms.
After my remarks about changes of the AppStore terms that made this analysis obsolete and wrong, they shifted their criticism onto another part, which was the "usage" part of the ToS. They complained that the terms did not allow all uses, especially commercial ones.
Indeed, one part could be interpreted in different ways. Therefore, I've mailed Apple Copyright Agent for explanation, twice. Once in November, once in December...
Apple has refused to answer, to explain or to help in any matter. They then decided to pull the Application unilaterally from the AppStore.
Of course, they are allowed to do that, and noone can complain, but this is yet another push from Apple against VLC, that adds to the very long list of past issues. It just makes me think Apple doesn't really want competition...
Since volumes have been written about Apple's idiotic app store rules already, I just want to say thanks for making one of the best pieces of software out there! I've been happily using it for years and will continue to use it for years on less restrictive platforms.
Apple doesn't have to spend their time discussing with you about legal dispute among copyright holders. If anything, you are lucky that they don't ban the developers who posted the app in the first place. I wouldn't mind a policy that said: "if you ever get us in a copyright dispute, you are banned forever from our store"
Instead, Apple was told that the app had a copyright problem, and it took them 2 months to take it down. Yes, it's slow, but no, they are not evil in doing so.
First, I still don't understand why you are so aggressive, once again, against me.
Then, again, you keep using "YOU GUYS" or "VLC project", which are no people or legal entities, and don't mean anything.
Then, the removal was done by Apple, and not by Applidium nor anyone else.
A complaint was filled by a copyright holder of some code on VLC. He represent himself and has the right to complain. It doesn't mean that his complaint is right, like any complaint.
But, the problem is that Apple has refused to explain the term of service and to help us finding a solution, and after being mute for more than 2,5 month, remove it without warning nor explanation.
So, yes, "Apple decided to remove VLC from the AppStore by themselves", even if you don't like it.
I'd hope it's a simple misunderstanding, but my gut tells me that this was planned -- I don't see how the VideoLAN guys can suddenly forget that one of their own demanded removal of the application and then vehemently say "we had nothing to do with it!"
This stuff is all public...it makes no sense, honestly.
Uhhh what happened here is that the VLC guys (specificaly Rémi Denis-Courmont) contacted Apple to urge them to remove the app. So that is what they did.
Kind of weird to blame Apple for following up to a copyright violation.
It is now between VLC and Applidium to figure out how to proceed.
Apple is not part of this. Developers need to play within the bounds of the App Store license terms.
A VLC developer complained to Apple about a copyright violation in October.
Apple pulled it unilaterally yesterday, after more than 2 months of silence, after refusing to help people, notably me, to solve the matter. So, Apple is definitively "part of this".
Not to mention that you are speaking about "VLC" which doesn't mean anything, since it isn't a legal entity.
And to finish "AppStore license terms" change all the time... So it is hard to "play within the bounds".
> Apple pulled it unilaterally yesterday, after more than 2 months of silence, after refusing to help people, notably me, to solve the matter.
Of course they did. It took them two months to process the complaint after one of the VideoLAN developers made it, but they followed through on an action that "a VLC developer" initiated.
With respect, if a developer representing VideoLAN complains to Apple, and another developer representing VideoLAN and claiming to be in charge approaches and tries to "work it out", Apple is not going to step into what appears to be an internal dispute. I am never an Apple apologist as I think they're a bit heavy-handed with the App Store, but in this case, how would you expect them to act?
This is what "a VLC developer" wanted, and he got it. I don't think Apple is the bad guy here in the slightest. I hope you're not trying to shift blame from the developer who initiated this to an easy target, Apple, because your original comment in this thread would make it appear that way.
"simply, by answering to the mails asking for clarifications on the ToS, so a solution could have come up."
Yeah, but unfortunately one of your team members, Rémi Denis-Courmont, had already used the nuclear option: informing Apple about a copyright infringement and asking them to remove the app from the store. So that is what Apple did.
The problem is that you guys are not working as a team. One person, Remi, is extremely bitter about this app being on the store (see the wording of his messages and that last blog post) and basically wants it to disappear forever.
I do not see any signals that Remi is approaching this the same way as you. You seem to want to resolve this, he just wants the app to be gone and never appear again.
You keep saying that there is no such thing as 'VLC the legal entity'. And that is probably how it looks from Apple's perspective: one guy requests the app to be removed, some other random person is trying to fix things.
In other words: you guys messed this up by not being a coherent team. Remi should have NEVER EVER sent that message. You guys should have come to agreement and worked with Apple as a team.
Fixing this is probably possible, but it requires cooperation from Rémi Denis-Courmont. You guys (here I say it again) will probably have to send a more formal letter to Apple to retract the initial complaint and then see if you can work together to fix this or to be more lenient and to simply say: we know this situation is not ideal, but thinking of millions of users who are using our software, we are going to let this happen anyway to see if we things can change in the longer term.
> "you guys messed this up by not being a coherent team"
See it like that if you want. But the fact is that in project without copyright assignment, anyone can make things go haywire...
To close the matter, because this takes ridiculously too much of my time: Rémi sent a message 2,5 months ago; Apple refused to answer my questions to solve the matter in the meantime; and then Apple removed the application without telling anyone in before.
Turn it in away way you want, I still don't find Apple's way a correct (nor polite) way, and I don't care if they get bad PR for that.
In the end, people getting screwed up are the users...
I've explained to you many times, that "You guys" doesn't mean anything and that one developer did complain alone. And that noone can control all developers in a non-copyright assignment project...
Your attitude is really annoying, and very aggressive around the whole thread...
Apple is absolutely part of this. Apple is the party that has released a platform that you cannot install software on without going through them for permission (unless you jailbreak it using a remote-root vulnerability which is patched in more recent releases). Apple is the party that decides what can be in its app store under what rules; and it has decided to use a set of rules that are incompatible with the GPL. Apple has thus chosen to limit the software that is installable on their platform.
Apple could choose to allow VLC; they have the choice of making their terms compatible with the GPL (it's not that hard; just don't impose any additional restrictions on top of the ones that the GPL already imposes, and let the authors handle the rest of the GPL's requirements), or enabling people to side-load apps outside of the App store. Google does both on Android; the market terms are compatible with the GPL, and they allow side-loading (and even rooting on some phones).
However Apple chooses not to do this. Thus, Apple is limiting the set of software that can be used on their phone. If you use an iPhone (or iPad, or iPod Touch), you should be aware of this; you may not ever be able to get some software on it without cracking your phone's security, and Apple may be arbitrary and capricious in what they choose to allow and disallow. Apple may also remotely disable and uninstall software or content that is on your phone. If you want to choose what to install on your own phone, you should either buy a phone that gives you more freedom, or jailbreak your phone and then install whatever you want.
It is funny how Jean-Baptiste Kempf keeps telling us here that there is no 'VLC legal entity' but at the same time Rémi sends out messages like the above in a press release style as if they are officially coming from the 'VLC Group'.
Anyway, Apple was contacted because of a copyright infringement. As anyone who has experience with the App Store knows, their action is then to simply pull the app, inform the developer (which is Applidium in this case and NOT VLC) and then leave the matter in the hands of those parties.
As far as Apple is concerned this matter is over. Until Applidium contacts them (because they are the ones having a contract with Apple) with a good reason to allow the app back in the store.
"Apple needs to be willing to discuss issues. Too often, their position can be summarised as 'my way, or the highway'."
Well, it is their platform and their store. If you think the rules are unfair then you can also develop for other platforms.
First, Apple had ZERO problems with approving VLC and getting it on the store. The app is gone now, but that is not because Apple changed their position, they simply responded to an alledged copyright/license issue reported by the original owner of the code.
The reason that the app has been removed is because the VLC developers, specifially Rémi Denis-Courmont, has requested Apple to remove the app from the store because of what license conflicts.
They would respond in exactly the same way if the GPL were not involved.
Seriously, Apple is currently working in the best interest of the claimed rights holder of VLC: it removed the app so that VLC and Applidium can figure this out.
This is not a case of Apple Against GPL: As soon as Applidium and VLC think they can actually work with the terms of the GPL and App Store then they can send that message to Apple and resubsmit the app.
I sure hope they do, but from what I've seen so far, the VLC folks seem to be extremely anti-Apple. We all lose. Thanks VLC.
I often hear this rhetoric provided as the de facto reason for why Apple (and other corporations governing IP-marketplaces) should be able to do whatever they like.
If this was true - why can't a telecommunications company operate in whichever way they choose? Why do we have regulatory frameworks which address the problem of monopolies or the formation of cartels?
Because sometimes corporations aren't working in the interest of the public at large; and they need to operate within a larger framework which has been put in place for the benefit of society.
To enable them to do so effectively - traditionally, regulatory bodies are put in place to oversee good practice.
I hope the same happens to regulate these new IP-focused marketplaces.
--
[..] If you think the rules are unfair then you can also develop for other platforms.
I don't think this is necessarily true.
People (customers, developers and businesses) have to invest a great deal of time, effort and money when they choose to develop for (or make use of) a specific platform.
Switching is expensive - and eventually common sense dictates that its more likely that those who have invested, are likely to put up with rules and regulations which they might otherwise see as unfair.
Also, once a developer has produced their iOS-based product - they are forced to sell through one marketplace; the Apple AppStore - which is also cause for concern in my opinion.
Telecommunications companies have a regulatory body because their market is a 'granted monopoly'. They have a pseudo monopoly in the sense that for any other company to compete would require a giant initial investment, and possibly a concession from the government, as is the case in wireless communications, so immediately they have all the customers. The government says, ok, will lets you use this spectrum, but you play by our rules.
It's not the same as in IP-marketplaces, or any other kind of marketplace for that matter. As long as they are not violating any law, the government should not try to regulate them, it doesn't matter how invested society is in it.
The world is changing; I believe that as we become more dependent on digital technologies, new legal frameworks need to be discussed and evolved.
It's not the same as in IP-marketplaces, or any other kind of marketplace for that matter. As long as they are not violating any law, the government should not try to regulate them, it doesn't matter how invested society is in it.
But why? - this is an opinion, not a fact.
Apple is acting as a self-governing private regulator of a marketplace - digital technologies have allowed this situation to become viable .. in the past markets have been inherently more 'free' due to their non-digital nature.
It is not an opinion, it is in the law. The government has no law to enforce in a case like this one. That is why they don't tell Walmart what to sell. As much as they want them to only sell american made goods, they don't have any law preventing Walmart to sell china's merchandise. And that is why they can regulate the telecommunications industry, because they have laws that let them.
"The world is changing; I believe that as we become more dependent on digital technologies, new legal frameworks need to be discussed and evolved."
This might be the case, and I partially agree with you. But as it stands now, Apple are not doing anything wrong.
I suppose much of this rests on whether you believe Apple is operating a 'store' or a marketplace.
It's complicated - I realise where the law currently stands; however, I feel that the law might need to be amended.
I believe the AppStore is a privately regulated marketplace operating within the free-market. This type of scenario is likely to become more commonplace in the future.
I can understand how the subject of the free-market (and possible government intervention) is at odds with a lot of people's politics, but I think the potential for abuse from the private sector is too great to ignore.
"Also, once a developer has produced their iOS-based product - they are forced to sell through one marketplace"
They know that going in. Nobody's putting a gun to their head and forcing them to write iOS apps. If they finish their app and only then figure this out, they're too stupid to be writing software.
Sure, but still, they know up front that they are essentially dependent on Apple's good graces. They know it's the App Store or nothing.
It's a risk. But then, there's also a risk that someone else will put out a better equivalent app first and win all the mindshare. Or that many different equivalent apps will ship first, and their app will have a hard time getting noticed.
Well, I suppose this is essentially what I'm arguing for:
I think that this situation is less than desirable. Apple (and corporations in general) shouldn't be able to artificially influence how a (sub)market functions.
If this is accepted, I think the only logical way to stop these situations from occurring is via legislation or regulation.
It's not an ideal solution, but then - the alternative (of doing nothing) is even less ideal in my opinion.
> This is not a case of Apple Against GPL: As soon as Applidium and VLC think they can actually work with the terms of the GPL and App Store then they can send that message to Apple and resubsmit the app.
Yes, and I hope that is what is going to happen...
> I sure hope they do, but from what I've seen so far, the VLC folks seem to be extremely anti-Apple. We all lose. Thanks VLC.
VLC has been on the mac platform since the very early days of OSX and was for a long time the only solution to play DVDs on Mac. VLC folks are not anti-Apple...
The problem is that each copyright holder has the right to do what he wants, because developers keep their authorship rights...
It's not ridiculous, but it's also not compatible with the principles of free markets that are in force in Canada and the USA at this time.
Apple is not a monopoly. It has a monopoly over those who choose to be its customers and those who choose to be its developers, but that is no different than saying that Levis has a monopoly over the black jeans that Steve Jobs wears.
Things become different when someone can show that Apple has a monopoly position over an entire market, or that Apple's product or service is an essential product or service.
For example, although there is plenty of competition amongst landlords for apartments, most jurisdictions have specific laws that limit the enforceable provisions of a lease.
At this moment in time, I don't personally see Apple enjoying a monopoly position in its market, not do I see video player applications as an essential good or service.
It's not ridiculous, but it's also not compatible with the principles of free markets that are in force in Canada and the USA at this time.
I agree, regulation has traditionally been put in place to deal with the creation of monopolies.
Personally - I think the question of whether Apple's AppStore constitutes a monopoly is a grey area. They are the only company authorised to sell applications developed for iOS. Supporters of Apple's current policy would argue that other application platforms are available.
To this, I would offer the counter-argument that prior investment (time/money/effort) encourages developers and customers to stick with (and put up with) most rules Apple decides to enforce. Choice is (theoretically) available, but many developers and users will be placed in a situation where there they aren't.
--
These IP-marketplaces are new - and, as with most things that are digitally-based, a great deal of power is available to whoever is in charge. More power, provides more scope for abuse.
I think that some kind of regulation - either through new legislation or a regulatory body needs to be provided.
--
Lastly - as Apple isn't providing a free-market to those who sell through it's AppStore, isn't it a little ironic that a desire for free-market economics is provided as a reason against regulation?
I think the question of whether Apple's AppStore constitutes a monopoly is a grey area.
Not even close to a grey area unless you want to argue that Nike has a monopoly on athletic shoes that have the Nike 'swoosh.'
To this, I would offer the counter-argument that prior investment (time/money/effort) encourages developers and customers to stick with (and put up with) most rules Apple decides to enforce. Choice is (theoretically) available, but many developers and users will be placed in a situation where there they aren't.
How is that different from pretty much every other market where some business decides to create a product that relies on another business' product?
Not even close to a grey area unless you want to argue that Nike has a monopoly on athletic shoes that have the Nike 'swoosh.'
In what way is Nike's swoosh comparable to Apple's AppStore?
I think the situation is much more complex; we're talking about a privately regulated marketplace within the free-market.
--
How is that different from pretty much every other market where some business decides to create a product that relies on another business' product?
A single company can be in complete control of a marketplace - this isn't so possible in non-digital market without help from an organisation like the Mafia.
There is no difference (in this context) between a digital and non-digital market. Apple provides a curated store to sell apps for their IOS devices. Their market, so they get to chose the rules. If you wanted to go sell products in Costco, or Walmart, you would have to play by their rules.
If you, as a developer, or user, don't like those rules, then thankfully we have superb open source operating systems, such as Linux, and OpenBSD that give you almost 100% freedom to build, sell, and use the applications of your choice.
In fact, if you have a jail-broken IOS device, then you can even purchase apps for those devices from places other than Apple's curated store.
The Droid, RIM, and WP7 platforms also provide varying degrees of freedom.
If, in fact, Apple had a defacto monopoly, then their behavior might come under some form of legislative oversight - but, they certainly don't have a Monopoly on the mobile computing platform, and we really don't need some external body providing regulatory oversight as to what/how Apple should approve applications landing in the store.
"There is no difference (in this context) between a digital and non-digital market."
There is a huge difference between a digital and non-digital market. In a digital market - one company can control (or curate) everything that occurs. This kind of control has only been made possible by digital technology.
--
"If you wanted to go sell products in Costco, or Walmart, you would have to play by their rules."
Costco or Walmart purchase products which they later resell. The AppStore provides an economic space where people can sell direct to the consumer. There's a distinction.
If I produce a product that can be sold in Costco or Walmart - and I don't like their policies, I can take my product and sell it elsewhere.
If I produce a product for sale via the AppStore, and I don't like their policies I have to redevelop my product to sell it via a different marketplace.
--
"If you, as a developer, or user, don't like those rules, then thankfully we have superb open source operating systems, such as Linux, and OpenBSD that give you almost 100% freedom to build, sell, and use the applications of your choice."
We're talking about the emerging IP-marketplaces, which are currently only viable for a handful of commercially operated platforms. The problem isn't that commerce is allowed to take place - it's that the rules of commerce can be artificially influenced by a corporation.
--
"In fact, if you have a jail-broken IOS device, then you can even purchase apps for those devices from places other than Apple's curated store."
This isn't a desirable scenario for many users, and isn't an economically viable market for many developers.
--
"The Droid, RIM, and WP7 platforms also provide varying degrees of freedom."
The problem is, there are no safeguards in place to stop these other platform vendors from artificially influencing the economic sub-markets associated with their own platforms.
A situation could quite easily develop where platform vendors unanimously agree to progress in a direction that inhibits developer (and/or user) freedoms. What happens then?
There is definitely a barrier to entry to the platform vendor market - because a huge amount of capital is needed get a business into a position where it can compete with the larger players.
--
"If, in fact, Apple had a defacto monopoly, then their behavior might come under some form of legislative oversight - but, they certainly don't have a Monopoly on the mobile computing platform, and we really don't need some external body providing regulatory oversight as to what/how Apple should approve applications landing in the store."
I think we need a body regulating the behaviour of all emerging curated IP-marketplaces. Digital commerce is very open to abuse - measures need to be put in place now while the stakes are relatively low.
If you're going to define "monopoly" and "platform" than the word monopoly loses all meaning. If I create a business making 3rd-party wire harnesses for VW Passat and VW decides to change to a different harness and that change would kill my business, should there be some regulatory body that can force VW to stick to its old tech?
iOS or iOS-based devices are not a market. Smartphones or tablet computers or personal computers are markets.
Consider that the government concern with Microsoft in the 90s wasn't its monopoly position in "Windows," which is tautological, but PC operating systems broadly, which includes Linux and Macs.
The smartphone and tablet computer markets are among the most competitive in the country right now. By definition this means no one has a monopoly.
"The relevant market consists of a 'catalogue' of goods and/or services which are considered substitutes by the customer. Such a catalogue is considered 'worth monopolising' if should only one single supplier provided it, that supplier could profitably increase its price without its customers turning away and choosing other goods and services from other suppliers."
So the question is this: if Apple were to increase its share of revenue by 5% to 10%, would developers move to Android, BlackBerry, or WP7? Absolutely. Even at the current level, there is plenty of cross-over between Android and iOS applications. In antitrust terms, the AppStore is not a market.
A) The ones who ported VLC and posted it on the App Store.
B) The ones who complained about the terms of the App Store.
C) The ones who are complaining now.
I'm sure there is some overlap, but I don't see how you can criticize members of group C who are not in group B.
Ah, so back in the day you guys put a license on your code that was so restrictive that now you can't release a version of it to live in the app store? Ouch.
It's a shame one of your developers is being nasty about it, but ultimately it's a problem you guys brought on yourself. If you hadn't put a license on your thing, your thing wouldn't have any license conflicts.
In other words, I suspect that next time you start an open source project, you'll pick a different license for it (or simply not use one).
Having no license means that you have no guarantee that the copyright owner will not change his mind and sue you in the future for using or distributing his software, licenses are a boring part but necessary.
If there's no license there are no rights for the user – they'll basically not be allowed to do anything with the code (or their lawyers can reasonably tell them to stay off it).
My preferred license for "please do whatever you want with the software" is the MIT/X11 license.
There are dozens upon dozens of video players on the App Store including commercial services like Netflix and Hulu Plus that directly compete with Apple's own offerings. Claiming this is an anti-competive move on Apple's part frankly makes no sense at all.
There is another media player for sale based on VLC still on the App Store that you should look into: http://itunes.apple.com/app/id406779775?mt=8 (the licensing incompatibility likely applies to it as well)
Would you be willing to be more specific about the terms that changed in the Apple TOS, and what they are now? And which license terms are in dispute about commercial use? I've read the FSF post about VLC dated october ( http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/vlc-enforcement ) is it safe to say you disagree with the FSF here?
I want to thank Jean and all VideoLan and Applidium developers for their great softwares that I use on my Mac and iPod touch.
I just don't agree that Apple pulled VLC because of their fear of competition. They did not remove BUZZ Player,OPlayer,yxplayer, CineXPlayer, etc.
I just think App Store is getting very big and hard to manage for Apple so they may make mistakes or they just chose the easy way, pulling the App instead of further investigating the copyright claims.
I hope you can find a solution and VLC appears again in App store soon.
"Of course, they are allowed to do that, and noone can complain, but this is yet another push from Apple against VLC, that adds to the very long list of past issues. It just makes me think Apple doesn't really want competition"
Maybe they don't want the hassle of dealing with flakey politics-ridden groups who don't have their shit together.
No, if Apple decides to create a new marketplace - to which tens of thousands of small business have a stake; Apple has a duty to act in an impartial and fair manner.
The fact that Apple created this economic space, doesn't give it the right to behave like a feudal overlord might have behaved in the Middle Ages.
--
It's very much a case of 'who watches the watchmen'.
An independent complaints or regulatory commission needs to be established which can be used to lodge complaints about unfair action within any privately created IP-focused marketplace. I believe that laws should be introduced to ensure that Apple (and Google / Blackberry etc.) would have to subscribe to any guidelines put forth by such a body.
"No, if Apple decides to create a new marketplace - to which tens of thousands of small business have a stake; Apple has a duty to act in an impartial and fair manner."
Apple didn't change their terms to exclude VLC or GPL. A developer (not VLC) put together the iOS version of the app, and, being fully aware of the terms of the App Store, the model of distribution, the use of DRM, and the likely incompatibilities with GPL submitted the app to Apple.
Blaming Apple for this is completely wrongheaded. It's essentially a disagreement between a VLC developer and the developer of the iOS app.
You might have a point if Apple had changed their terms after the app was submitted in order to exclude the app.
If anything, they loosened their terms to remove incompatibilities.
The iOS app developer screwed up. You should be calling for a regulatory commission to prevent developers from doing stupid things with GPL-licensed code like making business decisions that require abusing GPL.
Unfortunately that's just not true. While I agree that is "ideal" and the way it "should be," if I own a clothing retail store, and only want to sell designer Italian clothing, I'm allowed to. I don't also have to allow any and all Chinese, French, and American tailors to put their clothes in my shop.
Apple in no way analogous to a retail clothing store;
1. They are not buying products for resale - they are providing a marketplace for other businesses to sell their own products.
2. The products that are created for the iOS AppStore cannot be sold anywhere else.
Content creators can't vote with their feet - they're tied to using Apple's system. They have to invest in very specific technologies to participate in the Apple ecosystem. This creates a situation where Apple is provided with an unwarranted amount of power.
Whether you agree with me or not - I strongly believe measures will be put in place which attempt to rectify the situation.
Content creators can't vote with their feet - they're tied to using Apple's system.
This is not true. There are other marketplaces. They the Content Creators are the ones who decided the AppStore was a necessity and they are perfectly capable of changing that. In fact on HackerNews we have in the past seen Content Creators do exactly that. Choosing a different distribution mechanism or a different platform entirely for their Content.
Point 1 still stands but point 2 does not since it's too restrictive to be applied to the debate.
I'd heard that there are ways to circumvent the AppStore - but are these alternative AppStores economically viable?
A couple of questions;
1. Could an application developer make a living by selling their Apps via the alternative mechanisms - and would a regular (non-technical) user, be able to obtain these Apps without much effort?
2. Could Apple decide to 'outlaw' these alternatives if it chose to?
You don't have to circumvent the app store. You can choose a different platform. Saying that the iOS platform is the only market worth mentioning in this debate is a needless restriction. They can choose instead to go the android route or move off of Mobile completely and do something else.
iOS and the AppStore are popular for many reasons some of which have a lot to do with the Content Creators who are publishing there. It is not however the only marketplace and Creators have other choices.
There is only one marketplace [for iOS applications] ...
2. The products that are created for the iOS AppStore cannot be sold anywhere else.
--
There are multiple commercial marketplaces available for Android - so I don't think highlighting the Apple AppStore is necessarily a needless restriction.
The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party
Now:
...unless the App Store Product is covered by a valid end user license agreement entered into between you and the licensor of the App Store Product (the "Licensor"), in which case the Licensor's end user license agreement will apply
So either GPLv2 is a valid end user license agreement, or if it isn't, one just needs some out-of-bound mechanism that users and developers agree on GPLv2.
I hate to say it, but this is why I have a big problem with the GPL.
Not for infrastructure software like operating systems, web servers, and databases (where I think it is appropriate and beneficial), but for code intended for use in end-user applications (including web applications).
I think licenses like BSD, MIT, and Apache spur more innovation in those cases. You can make the argument that companies have no incentive to contribute back to open source projects without copyleft licenses, but projects like Webkit and Rails have proven otherwise.
I hate to say it, but this is why I have a big problem with
the GPL.
Why do you hate it? It's OK, I am disliking GPL (maybe not GPL itself, but the politics around it) more and more.
My take is: GPL was created when a lot was different. The main product was source code, the main users were programmers/admins. The bulk of the source was for tools/infrastructure.
Now we have millions of users who could not care less about source code and modifying it. All they want is to get an app and use it, period. GPL does not fit well into this scenario, IMHO.
The LGPL is copyleft in the sense that making changes to a library that uses LGPL copies the license; software that links to that library is free to have whatever license the developers choose. I have no problem with that.
You said that Webkit didn't have a license that required contribution back and used it as an example to highlight the difference in innovation. But, it does. So, it's not a good example for your argument. That was all I was pointing out.
What is it about infrastructural applications that makes copyleft licenses more appropriate (and visa-versa)? That is, what makes them spur innovation in the infrastructural roles and hinder it in end-user roles?
With open-source infrastructure software like web servers and databases, the software is not a product. There's no disadvantage to being forced to publish your modifications, and the license does not infect your end-user software that runs on them (the actual products).
The problem with the GPL in regards to user-facing software is that a developer using GPLed libraries is forced to publish ALL of his source code, even when he has not made any modifications to the library itself. In this situation there are no advantages for the developer (and serious disadvantages, even if you're not trying to sell the software for a profit but just want to maintain your rights to the source code), and there are also no advantages for the library project itself.
This is why, for example, the core engine of MongoDB is GPL licensed, but the MongoDB drivers are Apache licensed. If the drivers were also GPL licensed, developers would likely just choose to use one of the many alternatives with more palatable licenses.
So, you're saying that for an end-user developer, it's "appropriate and beneficial" for their infrastructural components to be GPL. But, it's not for components that directly link to their end-user product, because it forces their product to be GPL?
What about web servers and databases that are sold as products? Why does that same argument not apply for them?
And, what about the users themselves? The GPL guarantees that everyone downstream (not just the next developer) gains the advantages of having the source be open. The hypothetical library project that licensed under the GPL does gain an advantage because they have access to the source for software that uses their code.
I definitely agree that MIT/BSD/Apache/etc. licenses give developers more options wrt. licensing and distribution. But, I don't see how that necessarily encourages innovation. Nor, do I see how that innovation is encouraged only in the case of end-user software vs. more infrastructural software.
I don't see a problem with people selling infrastructure software commercially. It's well within their rights to make money off of their work. Just as developers who release open source code under a non-GPL license are asserting that they don't mind if someone expands on their work and makes a few bucks off of it. To me, that seems much more "free" and egalitarian. I mean, if I was really concerned about it I'd just require attribution. Fair enough.
I think that GPL vs. non-GPL in end-user software is just a difference in philosophy. I feel that it should be up to developers whether they want to open source their modifications or not. It seems that the majority of developers do publish and contribute back any modifications that are beneficial to the original project, but I don't think they should be forced to also publish the modifications that are only of any benefit to the modifier.
1. A developer writes an end-user application, but doesn't want to free their software. Clearly, this person isn't going to use GPL libraries.
2. A developer modifies an end-user application licensed under the GPL. If a developer makes a modification and then distributes that modification, then clearly it was of use to someone outside of that developer. The GPL guarantees that every person who uses that modified software gets the source.
But why is it good for an infrastructure product to be free, where it's bad for the end-user product?
Or, is this as simple as the fact that most free infrastructural products don't require the end-user product to be free. So, it's "appropriate and beneficial" for them to be free. But, most free libraries do require the end-user product to be free, so it's bad for the developer who may or may not want to make their product free. If I've accurately summarized, then at what point where does that "appropriate and beneficial" aspect disappear?
It seems to me that the GPL is used more as a weapon than a shield.
Either for some kind of selfish moral superiority, or in cases like this, where one person with a questionable agenda can shut down someone else's project:
"Before anyone grabs a pitchfork and/or torch and starts marching toward Cupertino, it's worth noting that VLC's removal from the App Store has nothing to do with Apple's preferences. Rather, it's a direct result of one man's misguided crusade... a man who, (perhaps) coincidentally, is an employee of Nokia, one of Apple's competitors in the mobile space."
For most application code, I think the non-copyleft licenses do a great job of preserving the spirit of open source software without shackling developers to a rigid doctrine they may not fully agree with.
That article is full of it. It essentially wants to agitate a lynch mob against the messenger, implying a conspiracy by Rémi and his current employer, without a clue about FSF's role in the incident, while disregarding any responsibility of Apple to provide its paying customers access to the software they want, by the terms they can get it.
The copyright infringement notice is not targeted to the group that created the iOS version of VLC, and their project is not being shut down. There is nothing that prevents those people developing that application and distributing it via any channel they choose, as far as that distribution channel complies with terms of GPL.
Why is it so hard to see that it is Apple which prevents having such distribution channels?
I am amazed how these people assume all the liability, support and freedom from the FOSS developers, who work without compensation, while happily accepting all the restrictions from their vendor, who they pay dearly.
How is it that I see talk about "how much I hate GPL" and "how GPL is bad for businesses/community/users/whatsoever", when an alternative of having these pieces of software distributed with GPL license is to not have them at all? The author of the software chose the license for a purpose. Without the license, choosing of which the creator has no obligations from the users whatsoever, the users will not have the software at their disposal at all.
Instead of groups of whiny self-entitled users and lynch mobs, we need people who are willing to work against restrictions imposed by businesses, and users who see themselves as members of a community and not just as consumers of others' free work.
That said, I think non-copyleft licenses like BSD are just fine. But at the end, it is the authors' privilege to choose whichever license they find suitable.
Sorry for the late reply but here goes -
It appears that the GPL works fabulously well in environments where there are few restrictions on how code is developed, modified and executed. In closed ecosystems the GPL's copyleft clauses make the code hard to use (there are server based loopholes). I think the unwieldiness of the GPL in closed environments is a net win because it creates incentives to moving to more open systems.
The FSF / GPL were started in an era where the PC environment was similar to the mobile environments of today. Over the period of their existence they have contributed to pushing the world in a direction where developer tools are freely available and the idea of spare time hacking is no longer a fantasy. I am hopeful that someone will create some mobile software under the GPL which is so useful that it creates the wedge required to open the mobile app landscape such that there are no restrictions on what languages are used to develop and how the apps get deployed.
In short its not the GPL thats broken here, its the closed nature of the system in question (iOS). In the short term this might require some activism and sadly at times this might result in things like VLC being removed.
Disclaimer - I am not affiliated with the FSF, Nokia, Apple, VLC or any other party in question.
> It seems to me that the GPL is used more as a weapon than a shield.
I think that's because it's news when it's a weapon but when it's a shield it just works. The majority of developers aren't trying to subvert the license; they work within the terms. You only hear about the license when somebody has broken the terms.
I don't, whenever possible. I certainly never use GPLed code that I know I'll need to modify later (for example, I probably won't ever modify the MongoDB source code).
It's also the reason I stopped hacking on Diaspora after the initial excitement wore off and I actually read the licensing terms. Well, that and their ill-advised copyright aggregation policy, which was apparently set up to allow for future dual-licensing (which I thought was pretty hypocritical).
So is this what GPL developers consider a "win?" The GPL seems designed to create something for developers to fuss about. The net effect is pretty stupid compared to BSD/MIT/Apache. It's been long ago proved that the community deals fairly with contributions of any kind. The only difference then with GPL is that it locks out many legitimate uses (businesses) that might have otherwise been available. That's not "free," that's "restrictive," no matter how many times Stallman bangs his drum.
No this is what a GPL developer considers a "loss". Specifically, yet another demonstration of why developing for someone else's walled garden is a bad idea.
What a bunch of ugly, hateful people. VLC developers devote thousands of hours of their own free time so users can have a FREE kick-ass piece of software, and what they get in return is being called "freetard", "prick" and "asshole", just because Apple refuses to honour their license.
I thought my opinion of Apple fanboys was pretty low already, but it seems it's got much further down to go.
How does this work for people who've downloaded it? I've got the better part of Family Guy's run on my iPhone playing with VLC. That combo has brought me more enjoyment than all of my other apps combined.
On a side note: I recently made the difficult decision of creating a library from scratch since the only one available was GPL. I guess that was the correct decision after all?
Going off of what has happened in the past, you can keep using that copy you downloaded (and the use the copy on your computer to load it onto more devices) as long as you want. It's just not sold anymore.
Apple does have a kill switch, but they don't use it for situations like this one (or, actually, they haven't used it at all so far). You can keep using it, but backup that .ipa file.
It's always a question of what the license authors believe is the overall freedom for users. Let's imagine I concoct a brand new license called "NoDRM." My license allows you to distribute copies of the software, modify it, charge for it, do whatever you like provided that you do not add any kind of DRM to it.
I distribute Wood and Stones with the NoDRM license:
Now somebody creates a new platform, let's say it's a watch that runs games. It has DRM built into everything it runs. It has a DRM-Store that allows free-as-in-beer apps. It is wildly successful, millions of people have these watches and everyone wants to play Go on them.
So: These millions of users want the "freedom" to run my app with DRM. I believe on principle that the world is more free if authors like me take a stance against DRM, which by definition limits freedom to every user downloading my game.
You can debate which position enhances freedom, but I think it's reasonable to agree that the author of a NoDRM license and the person choosing a NoDRM license believe they are enhancing freedom even as they deny users the right to use their app with DRM on it.
Personally, what I believe is that free software licenses--like the fictitious NoDRM--ensure that users are free to choose free alternatives. Most users won't make that choice, but then again most people aren't self-employed either. Nevertheless, our respective societies are considered free because self-employment is an option, and software is free if free software is an option.
You twist the word "freedom" just like Stallman. The influence of the open source software movement has always been negligible. The net effect is that we lose all of the protesters' work (substantial), and the protesters don't change anything. The Apple App Store isn't going to change policy because you withheld "Wood & Stones," but some Go enthusiast is the worse.
It's like an autoworker who wants everybody to unionize, and so he organizes sit-ins, but instead of ever forming the union that one guy just sits around all the time not working, ticking everybody else off.
What do you mean by we lose all of the protestors? If I don't want my software encumbered by DRM, I don't want my software encumbered by DRM. Do I belong to you? Does my software belong to you? How is it you "lose" me or my software? If you want it, here are my conditions.
I don't owe "some Go enthusiast" anything. They are not the worse off for anything, I didn't give them something and take it away. In fact, what I did was say, "If you choose to use a platform without DRM, you can get this thing I wrote for free." But hey, if that doesn't float the Go enthusiast's boat, he sticks with DRM. It's his choice, I am not stopping him from doing anything.
Arguing that I have some moral obligation to write software for proprietary distribution is like arguing that I ought to write Windows software because more people can use it. Which leads to arguing that I ought to stop writing programming tools and start writing games.
You and the Go enthusiast are free to choose free software or proprietary software, or nearly free software, do what you like. Better still, you're free to write your own software from scratch and stop whining about what other developers choose to do with the fruit of their labours.
How much more freedom do you want? And where do you think the freedom to write software without kowtowing to a corporation came from? Free software, that's where.
And no, I'm not like an auto worker sitting all the time not working, and neither is anybody else who writes free software. Does this look like not working to you?
I'm working, it's just that I choose what I work on, and under what conditions it may be distributed.
A better comparison would be that someone writing free software is like a hippie who grows his own coffee beans and sells them at the side of the road by his farm. You can't buy them at Tim Horton's or Dunkin Doughnuts because the hippie doesn't like what the big chains do with the coffee.
So you go to the hippie or you don't drink the coffee he grows. The problem is that you bought yourself a shiny espresso machine that only takes pods distributed by the manufacturer. So even if you buy the hippie's beans, you can't make yourself any coffee with them because the machine won't take them unless they've been shipped to the manufacturer and packaged into little special pellets.
How is this the hippie's fault for not liking big coffee chains or espresso machines? You can drink plenty of coffee, and you can buy a plot of land and grow your own coffee to be distributed by the espresso machine maker. You can buy a different kind of espresso maker that takes ground beans directly.
The hippie is free and you are free. The hippie hasn't shut down the big chains, but that isn't his goal. His goal is to sleep at night, comfortable that he has made choices compatible with his personal beliefs and that he has given other people the freedom to make choice compatible with their personal beliefs.
I suspect the argument is that by showing they're serious about enforcing the GNU license, they're making the current closed ecosystem less attractive, so either a truly Free system will be able to compete more equally, or the current system will decide to become more open. I'm not sure whether I agree with that argument factually, but I respect the principles behind it.
According to the FSF, it is about freedom for users.
"Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
Freedom 2 is not absolute, since I can't help my neighbor by making an improved version of the software that compiles against closed source libraries and distributing it to them.
Same with freedom 3 - if I make changes in that manner, I may not distribute them.
As a user, I am less free with the GPL than other licenses.
Not that this is a bad thing, but if the goal of the FSF is freedom of the user, they've got a ways to go.
What do you mean "run the program in public?" I don't think you mean putting a projector up and showing it off to an audience. (Which would be OK.)
I'm guessing you mean a web-app where your "audience" is running the software provided as a service. In that situation, the AGPL requires that you provide them the source code so they aren't beholden to you.
Otherwise, a web service is even more closed source than a binary executable.
You can't run the program on your own computer if other people can connect to it over the network without assenting to the license. It's a goddamn clickwrap EULA, something Stallman used to stand strongly against until he felt the need to rail against "the cloud" as that came into fashion.
The "audience" absolutely does not run the software, you do, on your computer — you just allow them to interact with it.
Also you're absolutely mistaken in thinking that the AGPL makes your users any less beholden to you when you still control their data — the program by itself is absolutely worthless, even with the means to develop and deploy it.
I think I see where we're misunderstanding each other. The freedoms the GPL ensures aren't for the developer of the software; but, for the users of that software.
The point is that, from the perspective of your users-- your "audience"-- they're running software somewhere out in the Internet. Where the GPL ensured (amongst other things) that they'd have access to the source of their local programs, the AGPL ensures they have access to the source of their remote programs.
From your perspective, this decreases your freedom as a developer because you're required to distribute your source code to your "audience." But, you have a simple recourse: don't use the AGPL!
wrt. the clickwrap EULA, I think the GPL and its variants have always been a set of terms and conditions. I don't know Stallman's arguments or what you're railing against; but, I will guess that his problem with clickwrap EULAs were that they limited how a user could personally use the software... or, worse, made other at-best tangentially related demands of them. The GPL and its variants do not limit your personal use, but rather constrain your ability to re-distribute the software.
wrt. the AGPL making users any less beholden due to the data silo effect, my position is that a program isn't intrinsically useless without a user's data... or even the developer's own custom data.
Consider a site like Facebook, where the primary value is in its network effects: anyone could open a competitor site that had feature parity. If the original site (Facebook) changed its policies in a way the userbase disliked, they could move to a competitor knowing the functionality would be the same.
Or, consider the GPL release of id software's old games. None of the assets are free. However, that didn't stop a huge ecosystem from springing up. Derivatives, alternate games, and the many thousands of people gaining an understanding of how to make a Real Game.
You're still mistaken — the freedoms the GPL ensures are for the software itself, not the developers or the users. In the case of VLC the developers have lost the freedom to publish it and end-users can't get it anymore, but those lines of code are sure free from the shackles of the App Store!
Facebook users do not see themselves as running software beyond their browser — it's just a website they use to communicate. It would be just as ridiculous to want the source to a SMTP/IMAP or XMPP server just because you have an account on it. The user-facing software is just CRUD plumbing — the account is what has value, and future control over that identity on that ___domain is usually more valuable than even the past data.
The GPL's conditions cleverly fit within the enforcement mechanisms of copyright law, it's a license to redistribute not a contract for use. The AGPL is totally different, it attempts to restrict your ability to run the software on a network-connected computer, much like the standard EULA text forbids you from using it in a nuclear facility. Unlike the GPL, you have to agree to its terms to execute it. One of these things is not like the other.
The id software games are a poor example, those ecosystems of mods were established when the games were commercially released, with tens of thousands of users making their own assets for the game engine they purchased. The GPL releases all came years into their decline, and several of the games had FOSS implementations of their engines before the original source was released.
Maybe we simply disagree. I don't think software, personified, has the capability to appreciate freedom. And, I think both the FSF and Stallman think the same[1][2].
Apple lost (or, more accurately, never had) the freedom to distribute VLC under the terms and conditions of the App Store. And the end users cannot get VLC from the App Store; though, it's readily available from other sources.
Whether or not Facebook users see themselves as running software isn't relevant to the argument. A person who licenses their software under the AGPL does view it that way. Therefore, if you choose to host that software, you're required to redistribute the source code. The AGPL doesn't restrict your ability to use the software on a network-connected computer. It does, however, require you to distribute the source code to any other users who use the software. If you don't want to distribute the code, then don't let other people use the software over the network!
I don't think it would be ridiculous to want the source to a server-- whether or not I had an account on it. But, I'm a curious guy.
I also agree that there is a lot of value in the account and identity. But, that's a different issue than the software and its license.
The id software games all had previously existing ecosystems. However, I was specifically referring to the ecosystems around the engines. Those improvements, derivatives, and the insight into a professional game engine were only possible after those releases. And I think that Quake's position as the often first-ported game to new game systems is a good testament.
Quite frankly, your argument confuses me because you claim the software itself is of limited value while simultaneously taking umbrage at being required to redistribute it.
[2] "Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone else—or even those of the whole rest of the world. ... To those who propose this as an ethical axiom—the author is more important than you—I can only say that I, a notable software author myself, call it bunk." http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
Windows has the OS exception in place, as would iOS. RMS has expressed the opinion that GPLed PhotoShop plug-ins aren't legal, nor is it legal to use a closed-source plug-in in the Gimp. The whole question of GPLed code in a non-free JVM has never been answered, as the JVM isn't quite an OS to qualify for the OS exception.
Thus, freedoms 2 & 3 are somewhat…flexible in practice.
There is no official "OS exception." But, the GPL does discriminate against "System Libraries"
Can you link to where RMS expressed that opinion? It goes directly against GNU's FAQ on the GPL[1].
It is a copyright violation to distribute closed source plugins for the GIMP. But, that is the reverse of the photoshop situation. The GIMP is GPL and so anything linking with it must also guarantee the same redistribution rights.
But, neither of these examples conflicts against your earlier examples. The GPL places no restrictions on your-- or your neighbor's-- personal use. And, you may distribute a GPL extension to a closed source product.
Of course, GNU would rather you'd implement a free software equivalent. :rolls eyes:
People have posted links to the original thread and the FSF's long analysis, but a short summary might be possible. I shall attempt one.
One of GPL's requirements is that when you distribute GPLed code, you can not impose any additional terms on the recipient.
When a user obtains an app from the App Store, Apple makes a copy of the app and that is downloaded to the user. This means that Apple needs permission of the copyright owner to do this. For most apps, there is no problem, because the developer owns the copyright, and grants Apple permission to make and distribute copies.
When the developer has included GPL code that he does not own, and whose owner has not granted an exception for Apple, Apple has to obey GPL. That means imposing no terms beyond GPL on the recipient.
Unfortunately, Apple does impose terms on the user--you aren't allowed to use the App Store unless you agree to Apple's terms, which include limits on what you can do with the downloaded software.
It would take all people who own copyrights of code in VLC. That would include the VLC authors, but might also include authors of other GPL code that the VLC authors used.
If a GPL project hasn't planned from the start to allow for the possibility of granting license exemptions, it is fairly easy to let outside GPL code get into the project without its authorship being carefully tracked and documented.
This is the original post by Rémi Denis-Courmont, on the VLC developers mailing list pertaining to the takedown notice filed at the end of October. In it he links to another FSF post about incompatibilities between the App Store licensing terms, and the GPL, as well as his rational for filing the takedown notice
EDIT: Sorry Callahad for the dupe, you typed faster than I did.
So it was the FSF who pushed for the removal, and not Apple doing it on their own accord?
Also reading that older HN discussion from two months ago it appears that Apple had addressed the compatibility of the AppStore T&C with the GPL (by adding an "unless" clause covering any prior licensing between the user and the software vendor) - has this changed since then?
Can anyone care to comment without bashing either side? Thanks.
Well, FSF and Remi notified Apple of the situation, and Apple removed them (GNU Go, Battle for Wesnoth, VLC).
As I understand, FSF and Remi did not request Apple for removal, they requested either Apple modify their terms of use to be compatible with GPL, or failing that, remove the app. It was Apple's choice.
EDIT: the parent added question about App Store terms change after I replied. I am working on that.
Apple's only choice was to remove it, they were never going to create a special set of ToS just for these applications, and they were even less likely to alter their overall ToS to be compatible with the GPL.
Even if they were willing to change their ToS as soon as possible, that would probably take a good few weeks of back and forth with their legal department. But a notification of breach of licence probably comes with an "immediate action required" stick, so the only thing they could do immediately would be to remove the app from the store.
So if someone wanted to be an asshole, they could send takedown notices for Pixie Scheme III (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2059242) as well as all other apps that are under GPL and Apple would no doubt follow the same approach and take them away?
Seems like a good way for closed source apps to remove their open source competition.
Looks like Rémi Denis-Courmont pulled his blog and his resume. What is going on there? His posting is aggregated on planet vlc, but it does not link to the original.
One might equally say that Apple is putting their App Store principles and desire to control their products ahead of the utility of their users. Very noble indeed ...
I would like to understand something here. As far as I was explained by experts (I'm not a lawyer) GPL license does not allow to publish software on closed / proprietary platforms controlled by ToS similar to Apple AppStore. My understanding it is not that VLC on iOS is breaking AppStore ToS but GPL license which is very restrictive when you release something based on it but it is not open sourced.
I don't have an iPhone because of this walled garden approach to software on it. I'm glad that this has happened as maybe there will be fewer walled garden type situations in the future. It is a pity for users who miss out on VLC but they've made a choice by buying a product that's locked to a single marketplace for apps and they have to live with that.
Putting aside all the issues involved here, what I don't understand to begin with is why any other iOS dev has not done an app that can play back the kind of AVI files most people have in their collections to begin with. Is it that hard? Or did devs shy away from it because they never expected Apple to approve such an app? Now that Apple has, will someone else come in with something else? This is a capability that's truly needed. There's just no way I'm going to ever convert my AVIs to MP4s. It'd be faster and cheaper just to get an Archos Android tablet to play those videos. (Note I mention Archos specifically because for years they've developed that capability and have ported that native software to now run under Android.)
This is very disappointing. VLC is a great product and so are the iPhone and iPad devices. Not having to convert video and being able to play them on the devices was very welcome!
It's such a shame... This to me has a similar kind of feel to patent trolling.
Why isn't there a third-party app store, by the way? iPhone only runs executables signed by Apple? I suppose that on Android, if Google's Android market sucks anyone can create a new market that ranks the applications better or simply lures in better apps?
On Android you'd be able to just put your app on your website and let people download it. Or email it to them as an attachment. Or any of the other traditional ways of distributing applications.
Yes, in a stock iOS installation Apples App Store is the only way to install software. Each package must be digitally signed by Apple. That is what 'jailbreaking' is all about: exploiting a flaw in some existing software to execute an arbitrary binary which breaks that restriction. Then you can use third party software repos.
"This end should not have come to a surprise to anyone."
Also, is it terribly selfish of me to find this enjoyable partly because of the App Store apologists and partly because it means there will be more focus on VLC for Android?
The VLC iOS app was developed by a company in France named Applidium, not the core VLC dev team. Applidium develops iOS apps.
So no. This does not mean there will be more focus on VLC for Android.
If anything I think this is a bad thing for all software currently using the GPL.
I understand the claim and ultimately it's the author's decision, but I feel that using the GPL in this fashion is ironic at best and hypocritical at worst.
What is ironic or hypocritical about it? There are general licenses which provide more freedom to the users (including limiting freedom of others in derivative works, which might be ironic in somebody's eyes), and this software uses a license which prohibits limiting distribution related freedoms (among others) because its authors wanted it that way. It is not ironic or hypocritical, it is only being consistent with the choice. (Do you mean that using GPL in the first place is ironic or hypocritical in some way?)
If you choose a license and don't follow it, what is the point of using that license?
By using GPL, you deliberately give a piece of software a life of its own. Because of the license, the action taken is not merely the author's decision, but something anyone can do, even if the author didn't wish for it (although it is only natural that the author is the first one to pursue compliance with the license he chose.)
This is not a bad thing for GPL'ed software. Instead, it is exactly what is (or at least should be) expected from using GPL. As said, there are also other licenses to use. If your expectations are different, use different license and don't submit to a license you find inadequate.
Well, ironic in the sense that the GPL is supposed to keep software free (libre), but in this case, it really restricts the end user by not allowing them even to load the app. You have to wonder who was being hurt by having GPL software on the App Store - if you're an actual iPhone developer, then you can most certainly download the source provided by Applidium under the GPL, and build your own copy of the software. If you're a dev that works on other platforms that uses the same GPL code, you can still download the code and use it. If you're not a dev, then you couldn't care less about access to the code or not, because as a non-dev, you can't use it. So just who's rights were being trampled on by the code being on the App Store?
Remi's stance is not principled. Everyone that would want to have access to the source had access to the source. He has done this because of some idealogical dislike that he apparently has of the Apple ecosystem. Fine, it's within his rights, but he doesn't get to claim that he was the principled one in this incident, quite the contrary.
The users would be allowed to load the app, that is not the issue.
The distributor (Apple) is not allowed to impose further restrictions upon GPL'ed software. Surely the users are ultimately the losers, but that is not fault of the creators of the software, but of the distributor (Apple) who likes to keep a stranglehold over its users.
A simple lift on the terms of usage for Apple's service would resolve the issue trivially, even effortlessly. Why do not Apple's customers ask their vendor why this can't be done?
Alternatively, if there was any other way to (trivially, e.g. without jailbreaking) get the application into the device there would not be a problem at all.
IMHO, the FOSS ecosystem built on GPL cannot tolerate and sustain violations towards the license without eroding the meaning of the license. This is the issue of principle, and that is why it makes perfectly sense to stick to the license.
The true irony of the case is in that Apple's customers - even those who know about such great products of the free software ecosystem as VLC - willingly submit to the restrictions of Apple's platform and are surprised not to enjoy the same freedom as those who choose otherwise.
Edit: It seems that the distribution issue has actually been resolved, and the problem has shifted to other GPL-uncompliant restrictions, and ultimately to Apple's own decision to withdraw the app, without discussion.
The problem here is that someone has made the assumption that the GNU GPL is permitted to impose restrictions on third parties or platform vendors. It isn't.
What happened here is that someone didn't understand what the GNU GPL does and does not do (and that includes the FSF, IMO) with respect to third-parties and platform vendors.
With all respect, IMO paying 99 dollars a year, getting a developer license and re-signing the application yourself is far from 'trivial'.
That aside, for me it is hard to see how Apple would not be the first-hand distributor for apps in its app store, as it clearly wants to control all distribution from the beginning to the end.
By loosening their stance on this (allowing easy installation of applications by other means) they would position themselves quite differently.
It's trivial. One used to have to pay thousands of dollars for a compiler. On some platforms, you still do, because gcc is substandard on the platform.
Is applying for a developer license from Apple really trivial? Is it not possible for Apple to simply not grant the license if they, for example, wish to deprecate a platform?
Do you have, or know a text that provides a proper explanation of 'GPL cannot impose restrictions on third parties', as the license (v2 as in the subject) clearly says:
6. 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. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
What counters the statement "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein"?
Apple is acting, more or less, as an FTP site plus an OS vendor in this case. In theory, the GPL can put obligations on the FTP site as a distributor, but it cannot out obligations on the OS vendor.
If this were the case, it would not be possible to ship ANY non-GPL-compatible software on Debian, for example, even in a non-free environment.
The question comes down to what the distribution site does, and they have two clauses: one for commercial and ne for non-commercial interests. They do not seem to be in conflict to me.
(I can only wonder what in my comments has been inappropriate enough to justify the downvotes. Simply disagreeing on a civilized opinion shouldn't prompt censors to act.)
If a distribution site requires to accept a contract between the distributor and the downloader regarding the usage of the downloaded programs, it is not equal to an FTP site which merely puts programs available.
I don't understand how Apple's position as an OS vendor affects the situation, if the question is about distribution. I would really enjoy a thorough explanation about it, if there is one, since to me it does not make any sense.
If there is no conflict (any more) between Apple's terms of usage for downloaded apps and GPL, then it all boils down to Apple's decision to remove the application without reason (other than an invalidated claim of copyright infringement). In that case, all the other GPL'ed software could be returned to distribution.
I can imagine that even Apple's own personnel has hard time following all the changes in their own terms and their implications of cases like this, and that's why it would be the best if Apple simply lifted the restrictions of their platform.
An ideological dislike of something is based on an ideology, which typically includes moral or ethical principles; hence he most likely is taking a principled stance.
The GNU GPL does not place obligations on a platform vendor.
If Applidium provides the source (or even re-signable binaries), then anyone with the platform vendor's normal access mechanisms can modify and install on their system. They can even go through the platform vendor's steps required to distribute.
(Yes, you can send re-signable binaries; Jesse Grosjean did this with early versions of PlainText. You only have to pay the access fee of $99/year to install it on your own devices.)
You are wrong, ultimately, it was Apple decision. The complaint was done in October, and Apple removed it just now, after refusing to answer the questions and clarify the case.
(not attacking here, just curious)
Have you been in contact with the company that developed the app? Honestly, I don't seem why Apple would feel like they need to discuss anything with you, because you're not the entity they are dealing with for the app.
Who is "you guys"? Do you understand what are true open source communities without copyright assignment?
Not to mention, that it is a 3rd party that uploaded the application, and that Apple distributed the application.
One copyright holder asked filed a request for infringement, two months ago; and Apple has refused to help to discuss and solve the matter. And then, pulled the application...
And, you don't see people from VLC complaining.
I don't see why you are so aggressive on this matter.
You did not have a hand in authoring the iPad app, correct?
You submitted a claim to Apple about clauses in the GPL not being compatible with the App Store's distribution model, correct?
In my original statement, I don't think I made any point that could be considered "wrong". I stated one fact (a 3rd party developed the app) followed by my opinion. I'm sorry you don't think my opinion is 'correct', but that doesn't mean I'm going to bet against the proliferation of GPL'd software because of these actions.
Glad to hear not all the time spent coding will go to waste :) I hope that vlc will still gain traction in the Android platform, you guys really deserve it. Thanks for all your hard work over the years to make the best video playing platform ever!
This is one reason why I have no desire to use Apple products and have essentially retired my iOS device. This restricts a great library of possible software from ever making it to my device and restricts the possibility of a decent freedom that some developers wish to give. This would not be a big deal if you could distribute software like on a normal computer (or most other mobile OSs.. including Blackberry, Palm OS (historical at least), Android, Windows Mobile (historical at least), Maemo, and so on). I shouldn't have to worry about the official distribution channel's restrictions imposing on what is essentially my computer as a whole.
They restrict in different ways. GPL restricts in order to give more freedom to people who wish to use software in certain ways; apple is protecting developer rights, in a blanket way that not all developers want.
I've written the most important analysis on the matter http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Novembe... and http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Decembe...
Some VLC developers (for Mac mainly), with the company Applidium, have ported VLC on iOS. Applidium published it on the store, for free.
Some developer complained (quite lately, btw...) afterwards and quoted a FSF analysis. Their analysis was totally wrong (spoke about redistribution), and based on old version of AppStore terms.
After my remarks about changes of the AppStore terms that made this analysis obsolete and wrong, they shifted their criticism onto another part, which was the "usage" part of the ToS. They complained that the terms did not allow all uses, especially commercial ones.
Indeed, one part could be interpreted in different ways. Therefore, I've mailed Apple Copyright Agent for explanation, twice. Once in November, once in December...
Apple has refused to answer, to explain or to help in any matter. They then decided to pull the Application unilaterally from the AppStore.
Of course, they are allowed to do that, and noone can complain, but this is yet another push from Apple against VLC, that adds to the very long list of past issues. It just makes me think Apple doesn't really want competition...