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.
