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.
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."
http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-stor...
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.