8 ms·

VLC developer takes a stand against DRM enforcement in Apple's App Store

57 points by tjr 16y ago

tragiclos 16y ago
All they would have to do is follow the license's conditions to help keep the software free. Instead, Apple has decided that they prefer to impose Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) and proprietary legal terms on all programs in the App Store, and they'd rather kick out GPLed software than change their own rules. Their obstinance prevents you from having this great software on Apple devices—not the GPL or the people enforcing it. I don't think Apple is the only one being obstinate here. The App Store definitely defines strict terms about how an app can be distributed, but so does the GPL.
- lambda 16y ago
  The GPLs rules are only about preserving end-user freedom (including the freedom to modify and redistribute software). Saying that the GPL has "strict rules" and is thus the same as the App Store is like saying that putting someone in jail for kidnapping is just as bad as kidnapping in the first place, because you're restricting someone's freedom. Yes, laws and jail for kidnappers restrict their freedom, but they only constrain you from taking someone else's freedom away. Likewise, the GPL only restricts you from things you do that take away other people's freedom. If Apple just allowed its end users to have the freedom required by the GPL, there would be no conflict.
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    No, the GPL defines explicit restrictions about what the end user can and can't do with the software. In my book, that's less freedom. Now, my tenet is just as flimsy as your tenet -- can't you see that your definition of "freedom" is flexible between people and that your freedom may not be another person's freedom? Because degrees of freedom are a subjective and relative interpretation all we can say objectively is that both the GPL and the App Store's EULA have restrictions and they both attempt to preserve an ecosystem that they see to be beneficial.
    - rwmj 16y ago
      The GPL doesn't say anything at all about what the end user can do. In fact that's "rule 0": http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The restrictions are on distributing the software which is quite different from use of the software.
      - Locke1689 16y ago
        Distributing software is something you "do" with the software. If I meant restricting the use of the software I would have said restricting the use of the software.
        lambda 16y ago
        The GPL doesn't restrict distributing software. Copyright does; without the GPL, you would not be allowed to copy the software at all, due to copyright laws that cover all creative works from the moment they are created, regardless of whether anyone opts in. The GPL grants you additional freedom to distribute the software, as long as you follow their rules. Now, it doesn't grant as much additional freedom as, say, the MIT license, but the only freedoms it fails to grant you are the freedom to take someone else's freedom away. You can do anything you want with the software, as long as you don't do something that limits someone else's freedom to do the same.
- X-Istence 16y ago
  Why can't VLC change their license to something that works with Apple's App Store license agreement. Clearly the VLC developers wanted Apple to distribute their Application because why was it otherwise created and put up on the App Store in the first place? </devils advocate>
  - BigZaphod 16y ago
    In theory, they could. I suspect that, practically, that's not going to be possible. I don't know all the details, but I imagine it'd mean going to every contributor and getting some kind of statement that they are allowing their code to be relicensed under a new license. That'd be pretty nasty. I believe Squeak Smalltalk went through something like this and it took years.
BigZaphod 16y ago
This isn't much of a stand, IMO. Apple will just pull it unceremoniously. Those who loved having it on their devices lose. VLC loses "customers." The GPL loses by looking worse than Apple's own rules. Apple loses by looking as if their approval process failed to catch yet another edge case. Everyone loses.
- mofey 16y ago
  How does GPL lose by pushing software to be open?
  - BigZaphod 16y ago
    It's ironic to me that "openness" is cited as a reason to prevent certain software from being used and enjoyed on a specific platform.
    - hasenj 16y ago
      Who's pulling the software out? Apple.
      - BigZaphod 16y ago
        So who lied, then, when they agreed to Apple's explicitly stated terms and gave Apple permission to distribute VLC in this form in the App Store? If VLC gets removed, it's because this developer is essentially demanding that Apple remove it.
        patrickaljord 16y ago
        The dev who is asking to remove it is not the same as the one who submitted it to the appstore. VLC is foss and as such any contributor is a copyright holder and can ask apple to remove it from the appstore.
        BigZaphod 16y ago
protomyth 16y ago
Someone who submitted the app agreed that Apple's terms were fine and the developer could legally distribute the software in the manner the app store does. It probably would have been better not to submit it at all.
jsz0 16y ago
The GPL gives Apple permission to distribute this software through the App Store. All they would have to do is follow the license's conditions to help keep the software free. vs. "Apple gives developers the ability to distribute this software through the AppStore. All they would have to do is follow the EULA's conditions to help keep the software free" Reminds me of the US political system. Opposing philosophical views but the they're both using the same tactics. Follow our rules because we know what's best for you.
- jonhendry 16y ago
  Because Apple has nothing better to do than to deal with developers submitting apps with all kinds of idiosyncratic hoops for Apple to jump through. "Oh, you can distribute this, as long as you do x, y, and z to be in compliance with the GPL license." "Oh, you can distribute this, as long as you put the app icon on theh apple.com front page." "Oh, you can distribute this, as long as you send Richard Stallman a signed glossy photo of Steve Jobs." "Oh, you can distribute my app, Apple just has to distribute my source code on the Lion install disk."
  - jjs 16y ago
    > Because Apple has nothing better to do than to deal with developers submitting apps with all kinds of idiosyncratic hoops for Apple to jump through. And how would those nasty developers like it if Apple suddenly introduced all kinds of idiosyncratic hoops to the app submission process for the developers to jump through? Why, they'd have no grounds to complain, that's for sure!
    - jonhendry 16y ago
      It's Apple's store, they get to set the rules for their store. I have no problem with that. I may grumble at the rules they choose, but I'm not going to cry about it. Little developers don't have much leverage. That's life. BFD. In the grand scheme of things, it's not a big deal. If the worst thing that happens in your life this year is that your app falls afoul of some persnickety little Apple rule, you're still living better than the vast majority of the humans on the planet who would LOVE to be so afflicted.
patrickaljord 16y ago
I saw that coming the very day VLC was approved on the AppStore, looks like I was right: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1709912 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1709912 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1710045 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1710045
Xuzz 16y ago
So, where else does the FSF suggest we get our apps if we are supposed to avoid the App Store?
- tjr 16y ago
  The FSF would not recommend using an iPhone at all, in its present state. They have instead recommended phones such as the FreeRunner: http://www.openmoko.com/freerunner.html http://www.openmoko.com/freerunner.html
allertonm 16y ago
He's "taking a stand against Apple", but ISTM the real offender here is about the company that built an app with his code and submitted it to the store in breach of his license.
- bryanlarsen 16y ago
  The point is that the developer wants developers to build apps with his code and distribute it. So he's complaining about the entity responsible for limiting distribution. He has no problem with the company that built the app. Of course reading motives into people's heads is prone to error, but it's implied by his choice of the GPL...
  - danieldk 16y ago
    Maybe he has no problem with the company that built the application, but the company submitted the application to the App Store knowing that the App Store's conditions would violate the GPL. You cannot force GPL down Apple's throat. It is their application store. If their terms are not compatible with your license, change your license or live with it. By picking the GPL you are excluding some distribution venues. In the meanwhile, the VideoLAN project is still endorsing the iOS application on their website. So, they are sending copyright infringement notices, while at the same time encouraging people to buy it? http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-ios.html http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-ios.html
    - bryanlarsen 16y ago
      or live with it. Which is exactly what he's doing. He could have let the original infringement slip quietly by, but instead he's using it to make a political point. Everybody loses short term, but he's hoping for long term gains.
tzs 16y ago
"That's because we went through a similar enforcement action against Apple when we learned that a port of GNU Go (which is copyrighted by the FSF) was being distributed through the App Store. Unfortunately, Apple chose to make the issue go away by simply removing the software from the App Store". The FSF told Apple that distributing a port of GNU Go on the Apple store violated the copyright of GNU Go. Apple stopped distributing it. It is pretty ridiculous of the FSF to say it is "unfortunate" that Apple chose to stop distributing it.
- lambda 16y ago
  Of course it is unfortunate. Apple had two choices; stop distributing it, or distribute it in a way which complies with the license. The FSF would prefer the latter; they are disappointed when people choose the former. Telling people to stop distributing it because it is infringing copyright to do so is the stick, and the software distributed under the proper license is the carrot, to try and promote software freedom. The FSF would much rather have people be able to run GNU Go under the terms of the GPL, than not be able to run it at all. Why do you think this is ridiculous?
  - alextgordon 16y ago
    If the FSF want Apple to take notice, they need to give them a reason to take notice. Appealing to Apple's sense of morality is optimistic at best.
  - demallien 16y ago
    I'm curious as to how you think that Apple could provide the source code to a 3rd-party application. Would you care to explain?
    - tzs 16y ago
      The problem isn't lack of source. Most GPL programs that have appeared on the App Store have included a way to get the source satisfactory for GPL purposes. The problem is with the terms of use of the store. When an end user tries to use the store, the end user has to agree to certain terms, including that they will not reverse engineer anything they download, they will not copy it, and other terms of that kind. When a developer offers his program through the store, he provides a copy to Apple. When an end user purchases the program, Apple makes a copy and provides it to the user. Hence, from a copyright point of view, Apple is making and distributing copies of the program, and so Apple needs permission of the copyright owner. If the program is GPL, Apple has to obey GPL to get that permission. GPL prohibits imposing additional restrictions on the GPL code you distribute. Apple's end user terms of service are additional terms. Hence, it is not possible to distribute GPL code through the Apple store unless you grant Apple an exception allowing them to impose their additional terms. If it is the copyright owner who is making the app, that is not a problem. However, if they use anyone else's GPL code, and that third party coder has not granted Apple an exception, then the app cannot be distributed via the store.
jbk 16y ago
As a major VLC developer, I have to say that the FSF is pushing bad faith and FUD. The matter is way more complex, and it seems that the latest Apple Store terms are indeed compatible with the GPLv2 if you use a few precautions. See http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html#APPS http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html#APPS "LICENSE OF APP STORE PRODUCTS" part "You agree that the terms of the Licensed Application End User License Agreement will apply to each Apple Product and to each Third-Party Product that you license through the App Store Service, 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 to that App Store Product." Read the unless part... Oh, of course, it is better to make a political statement that doesn't even read the AppStore terms... Not to mention that VLC is GPLv2 not GPLv3...
- jonhendry 16y ago
  That's the end user license. What's relevant is the app store developer agreement, and what app submitters agree to.
  - jbk 16y ago
    App submitter and developer agreement signing person are not related to the VideoLAN project. The problem the FSF is rising is about users rights, nothing else... I don't see your point, I am afraid.
    - jonhendry 16y ago
      The submitter agreed for the app to be distributed in the App Store way, as is pretty well understood at this point. If the FSF has a problem, they should take it up with the app's submitter, not Apple. Did VideoLan misrepresent the app to Apple as being compatible with the App Store? That's the crux of the matter.
      - jbk 16y ago
        VideoLAN did not submit any application. A company named Applidium did.
CrLf 16y ago
I'm not familliar with the AppStore's terms, but VLC is licensed under the GPLv2. This means that the distribution of a derived work must be accompanied by a copy of the license text, and a reference to a place where the recipient (the user) can download the source code. If the app submitted to the AppStore does both of these things, I don't see any violation. Of course, you can't just change the source code and then run the modified app on your iPhone, but you can't do that for a Linux-based router either. I'm not sure what's the problem here, really.
StavrosK 16y ago
It's very unfortunate that some devs spent much of their time porting vlc on iOS so it could be yanked by another dev kicking up a fuss over a technicality, in my opinion... I hate apple's fascism as much as the next guy, but I don't see how the app store practically violates the GPL. Is it because it has no "download source" button? You can get it easily enough at the dev's site...
- octover 16y ago
  There may be other complexities to it, but I never thought the GPL v2 explicitly forbad DRM signed apps. Also it was my understanding that providing the source could be a URL, which is the easiest for everyone involved, but you could also provide it upon request by mailing a CDR and still be compliant. The GPL does not require that the source be included with the distribution of the program, just that the source is available to anyone who gets the compiled program.
  - StavrosK 16y ago
    I think so too, but I'm not sure.
JohnTHaller 16y ago
For the confused: * VLC for iOS was ported by a 3rd party, not by the VLC developers * VLC and most included libraries are licensed under GPLv2 which has specific requirements around redistribution and rights of users/developers * Apple's app store policies are in violation of the terms outlined in GPLv3 (see: anti-Tivoization clauses) so software with any GPLv3 components can not be released in the app store * Apple's app store policies also used to (and may still) be in violation of the terms outlined in GPLv2 so software with any GPLv2 components can not be released in the app store. The FSF did an analysis of the older App Store rules and determined that they were incompatible with v2 and v3 licensed code. They have not re-examined the new policy but some developers believe it is still incompatible with v2 as well as v3. * The code in VLC itself is not owned by a VLC organization. Like most GPL projects, it is owned by the individual contributors. * Rémi Denis-Courmont has written code that is included in VLC and is used in the iOS port and believes this was done in violation of GPLv2 (and, thus, copyright law). Some other VLC developers agree with him. * Some VLC developers disagree with Rémi's interpretation * Some VLC members have been accused of trying to censor Rémi's posts on the topic by removing his RSS feed from the VLC meta-feed * For those unfamiliar with the details and goals of the GPL, Wikipedia is a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License Anything missing?
- danieldk 16y ago
  VLC endorses the iOS application in the App Store (at the time of linking): http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-ios.html http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-ios.html
  - JohnTHaller 16y ago
    It would be more accurate to state that "the VLC website maintainers have linked to it". It is disingenuous to say VLC "approves" of it as some developers, including Rémi Denis-Courmont, do not and see it as a GPL and copyright violation. Remember, Rémi is one of the core developers (and the top contributor to VLC according to Ohloh's stats: https://www.ohloh.net/p/vlc/contributors https://www.ohloh.net/p/vlc/contributors ), so saying 'VLC approves of the iOS port' is just incorrect.

57 points by tjr 16y ago

All they would have to do is follow the license's conditions to help keep the software free. Instead, Apple has decided that they prefer to impose Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) and proprietary legal terms on all programs in the App Store, and they'd rather kick out GPLed software than change their own rules. Their obstinance prevents you from having this great software on Apple devices—not the GPL or the people enforcing it. I don't think Apple is the only one being obstinate here. The App Store definitely defines strict terms about how an app can be distributed, but so does the GPL.

lambda 16y ago
The GPLs rules are only about preserving end-user freedom (including the freedom to modify and redistribute software). Saying that the GPL has "strict rules" and is thus the same as the App Store is like saying that putting someone in jail for kidnapping is just as bad as kidnapping in the first place, because you're restricting someone's freedom. Yes, laws and jail for kidnappers restrict their freedom, but they only constrain you from taking someone else's freedom away. Likewise, the GPL only restricts you from things you do that take away other people's freedom. If Apple just allowed its end users to have the freedom required by the GPL, there would be no conflict.
- Locke1689 16y ago
  No, the GPL defines explicit restrictions about what the end user can and can't do with the software. In my book, that's less freedom. Now, my tenet is just as flimsy as your tenet -- can't you see that your definition of "freedom" is flexible between people and that your freedom may not be another person's freedom? Because degrees of freedom are a subjective and relative interpretation all we can say objectively is that both the GPL and the App Store's EULA have restrictions and they both attempt to preserve an ecosystem that they see to be beneficial.
  - rwmj 16y ago
    The GPL doesn't say anything at all about what the end user can do. In fact that's "rule 0": http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The restrictions are on distributing the software which is quite different from use of the software.
    - Locke1689 16y ago
      Distributing software is something you "do" with the software. If I meant restricting the use of the software I would have said restricting the use of the software.
      - lambda 16y ago
        The GPL doesn't restrict distributing software. Copyright does; without the GPL, you would not be allowed to copy the software at all, due to copyright laws that cover all creative works from the moment they are created, regardless of whether anyone opts in. The GPL grants you additional freedom to distribute the software, as long as you follow their rules. Now, it doesn't grant as much additional freedom as, say, the MIT license, but the only freedoms it fails to grant you are the freedom to take someone else's freedom away. You can do anything you want with the software, as long as you don't do something that limits someone else's freedom to do the same.
X-Istence 16y ago
Why can't VLC change their license to something that works with Apple's App Store license agreement. Clearly the VLC developers wanted Apple to distribute their Application because why was it otherwise created and put up on the App Store in the first place? </devils advocate>
- BigZaphod 16y ago
  In theory, they could. I suspect that, practically, that's not going to be possible. I don't know all the details, but I imagine it'd mean going to every contributor and getting some kind of statement that they are allowing their code to be relicensed under a new license. That'd be pretty nasty. I believe Squeak Smalltalk went through something like this and it took years.

BigZaphod 16y ago

This isn't much of a stand, IMO. Apple will just pull it unceremoniously. Those who loved having it on their devices lose. VLC loses "customers." The GPL loses by looking worse than Apple's own rules. Apple loses by looking as if their approval process failed to catch yet another edge case. Everyone loses.

mofey 16y ago
How does GPL lose by pushing software to be open?
- BigZaphod 16y ago
  It's ironic to me that "openness" is cited as a reason to prevent certain software from being used and enjoyed on a specific platform.
  - hasenj 16y ago
    Who's pulling the software out? Apple.
    - BigZaphod 16y ago
      So who lied, then, when they agreed to Apple's explicitly stated terms and gave Apple permission to distribute VLC in this form in the App Store? If VLC gets removed, it's because this developer is essentially demanding that Apple remove it.
      - patrickaljord 16y ago
        The dev who is asking to remove it is not the same as the one who submitted it to the appstore. VLC is foss and as such any contributor is a copyright holder and can ask apple to remove it from the appstore.
        BigZaphod 16y ago

protomyth 16y ago

Someone who submitted the app agreed that Apple's terms were fine and the developer could legally distribute the software in the manner the app store does. It probably would have been better not to submit it at all.

jsz0 16y ago

The GPL gives Apple permission to distribute this software through the App Store. All they would have to do is follow the license's conditions to help keep the software free. vs. "Apple gives developers the ability to distribute this software through the AppStore. All they would have to do is follow the EULA's conditions to help keep the software free" Reminds me of the US political system. Opposing philosophical views but the they're both using the same tactics. Follow our rules because we know what's best for you.

jonhendry 16y ago
Because Apple has nothing better to do than to deal with developers submitting apps with all kinds of idiosyncratic hoops for Apple to jump through. "Oh, you can distribute this, as long as you do x, y, and z to be in compliance with the GPL license." "Oh, you can distribute this, as long as you put the app icon on theh apple.com front page." "Oh, you can distribute this, as long as you send Richard Stallman a signed glossy photo of Steve Jobs." "Oh, you can distribute my app, Apple just has to distribute my source code on the Lion install disk."
- jjs 16y ago
  > Because Apple has nothing better to do than to deal with developers submitting apps with all kinds of idiosyncratic hoops for Apple to jump through. And how would those nasty developers like it if Apple suddenly introduced all kinds of idiosyncratic hoops to the app submission process for the developers to jump through? Why, they'd have no grounds to complain, that's for sure!
  - jonhendry 16y ago
    It's Apple's store, they get to set the rules for their store. I have no problem with that. I may grumble at the rules they choose, but I'm not going to cry about it. Little developers don't have much leverage. That's life. BFD. In the grand scheme of things, it's not a big deal. If the worst thing that happens in your life this year is that your app falls afoul of some persnickety little Apple rule, you're still living better than the vast majority of the humans on the planet who would LOVE to be so afflicted.

patrickaljord 16y ago

I saw that coming the very day VLC was approved on the AppStore, looks like I was right: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1709912 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1709912 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1710045 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1710045

Xuzz 16y ago

So, where else does the FSF suggest we get our apps if we are supposed to avoid the App Store?

tjr 16y ago
The FSF would not recommend using an iPhone at all, in its present state. They have instead recommended phones such as the FreeRunner: http://www.openmoko.com/freerunner.html http://www.openmoko.com/freerunner.html

allertonm 16y ago

He's "taking a stand against Apple", but ISTM the real offender here is about the company that built an app with his code and submitted it to the store in breach of his license.

bryanlarsen 16y ago
The point is that the developer wants developers to build apps with his code and distribute it. So he's complaining about the entity responsible for limiting distribution. He has no problem with the company that built the app. Of course reading motives into people's heads is prone to error, but it's implied by his choice of the GPL...
- danieldk 16y ago
  Maybe he has no problem with the company that built the application, but the company submitted the application to the App Store knowing that the App Store's conditions would violate the GPL. You cannot force GPL down Apple's throat. It is their application store. If their terms are not compatible with your license, change your license or live with it. By picking the GPL you are excluding some distribution venues. In the meanwhile, the VideoLAN project is still endorsing the iOS application on their website. So, they are sending copyright infringement notices, while at the same time encouraging people to buy it? http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-ios.html http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-ios.html
  - bryanlarsen 16y ago
    or live with it. Which is exactly what he's doing. He could have let the original infringement slip quietly by, but instead he's using it to make a political point. Everybody loses short term, but he's hoping for long term gains.

tzs 16y ago

"That's because we went through a similar enforcement action against Apple when we learned that a port of GNU Go (which is copyrighted by the FSF) was being distributed through the App Store. Unfortunately, Apple chose to make the issue go away by simply removing the software from the App Store". The FSF told Apple that distributing a port of GNU Go on the Apple store violated the copyright of GNU Go. Apple stopped distributing it. It is pretty ridiculous of the FSF to say it is "unfortunate" that Apple chose to stop distributing it.

lambda 16y ago
Of course it is unfortunate. Apple had two choices; stop distributing it, or distribute it in a way which complies with the license. The FSF would prefer the latter; they are disappointed when people choose the former. Telling people to stop distributing it because it is infringing copyright to do so is the stick, and the software distributed under the proper license is the carrot, to try and promote software freedom. The FSF would much rather have people be able to run GNU Go under the terms of the GPL, than not be able to run it at all. Why do you think this is ridiculous?
- alextgordon 16y ago
  If the FSF want Apple to take notice, they need to give them a reason to take notice. Appealing to Apple's sense of morality is optimistic at best.
- demallien 16y ago
  I'm curious as to how you think that Apple could provide the source code to a 3rd-party application. Would you care to explain?
  - tzs 16y ago
    The problem isn't lack of source. Most GPL programs that have appeared on the App Store have included a way to get the source satisfactory for GPL purposes. The problem is with the terms of use of the store. When an end user tries to use the store, the end user has to agree to certain terms, including that they will not reverse engineer anything they download, they will not copy it, and other terms of that kind. When a developer offers his program through the store, he provides a copy to Apple. When an end user purchases the program, Apple makes a copy and provides it to the user. Hence, from a copyright point of view, Apple is making and distributing copies of the program, and so Apple needs permission of the copyright owner. If the program is GPL, Apple has to obey GPL to get that permission. GPL prohibits imposing additional restrictions on the GPL code you distribute. Apple's end user terms of service are additional terms. Hence, it is not possible to distribute GPL code through the Apple store unless you grant Apple an exception allowing them to impose their additional terms. If it is the copyright owner who is making the app, that is not a problem. However, if they use anyone else's GPL code, and that third party coder has not granted Apple an exception, then the app cannot be distributed via the store.

jbk 16y ago

As a major VLC developer, I have to say that the FSF is pushing bad faith and FUD. The matter is way more complex, and it seems that the latest Apple Store terms are indeed compatible with the GPLv2 if you use a few precautions. See http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html#APPS http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html#APPS "LICENSE OF APP STORE PRODUCTS" part "You agree that the terms of the Licensed Application End User License Agreement will apply to each Apple Product and to each Third-Party Product that you license through the App Store Service, 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 to that App Store Product." Read the unless part... Oh, of course, it is better to make a political statement that doesn't even read the AppStore terms... Not to mention that VLC is GPLv2 not GPLv3...

jonhendry 16y ago
That's the end user license. What's relevant is the app store developer agreement, and what app submitters agree to.
- jbk 16y ago
  App submitter and developer agreement signing person are not related to the VideoLAN project. The problem the FSF is rising is about users rights, nothing else... I don't see your point, I am afraid.
  - jonhendry 16y ago
    The submitter agreed for the app to be distributed in the App Store way, as is pretty well understood at this point. If the FSF has a problem, they should take it up with the app's submitter, not Apple. Did VideoLan misrepresent the app to Apple as being compatible with the App Store? That's the crux of the matter.
    - jbk 16y ago
      VideoLAN did not submit any application. A company named Applidium did.

CrLf 16y ago

I'm not familliar with the AppStore's terms, but VLC is licensed under the GPLv2. This means that the distribution of a derived work must be accompanied by a copy of the license text, and a reference to a place where the recipient (the user) can download the source code. If the app submitted to the AppStore does both of these things, I don't see any violation. Of course, you can't just change the source code and then run the modified app on your iPhone, but you can't do that for a Linux-based router either. I'm not sure what's the problem here, really.

StavrosK 16y ago

It's very unfortunate that some devs spent much of their time porting vlc on iOS so it could be yanked by another dev kicking up a fuss over a technicality, in my opinion... I hate apple's fascism as much as the next guy, but I don't see how the app store practically violates the GPL. Is it because it has no "download source" button? You can get it easily enough at the dev's site...

octover 16y ago
There may be other complexities to it, but I never thought the GPL v2 explicitly forbad DRM signed apps. Also it was my understanding that providing the source could be a URL, which is the easiest for everyone involved, but you could also provide it upon request by mailing a CDR and still be compliant. The GPL does not require that the source be included with the distribution of the program, just that the source is available to anyone who gets the compiled program.
- StavrosK 16y ago
  I think so too, but I'm not sure.

JohnTHaller 16y ago

For the confused: * VLC for iOS was ported by a 3rd party, not by the VLC developers * VLC and most included libraries are licensed under GPLv2 which has specific requirements around redistribution and rights of users/developers * Apple's app store policies are in violation of the terms outlined in GPLv3 (see: anti-Tivoization clauses) so software with any GPLv3 components can not be released in the app store * Apple's app store policies also used to (and may still) be in violation of the terms outlined in GPLv2 so software with any GPLv2 components can not be released in the app store. The FSF did an analysis of the older App Store rules and determined that they were incompatible with v2 and v3 licensed code. They have not re-examined the new policy but some developers believe it is still incompatible with v2 as well as v3. * The code in VLC itself is not owned by a VLC organization. Like most GPL projects, it is owned by the individual contributors. * Rémi Denis-Courmont has written code that is included in VLC and is used in the iOS port and believes this was done in violation of GPLv2 (and, thus, copyright law). Some other VLC developers agree with him. * Some VLC developers disagree with Rémi's interpretation * Some VLC members have been accused of trying to censor Rémi's posts on the topic by removing his RSS feed from the VLC meta-feed * For those unfamiliar with the details and goals of the GPL, Wikipedia is a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License Anything missing?

danieldk 16y ago
VLC endorses the iOS application in the App Store (at the time of linking): http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-ios.html http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-ios.html
- JohnTHaller 16y ago
  It would be more accurate to state that "the VLC website maintainers have linked to it". It is disingenuous to say VLC "approves" of it as some developers, including Rémi Denis-Courmont, do not and see it as a GPL and copyright violation. Remember, Rémi is one of the core developers (and the top contributor to VLC according to Ohloh's stats: https://www.ohloh.net/p/vlc/contributors https://www.ohloh.net/p/vlc/contributors ), so saying 'VLC approves of the iOS port' is just incorrect.