5 ms·

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

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
        I know it's not the same individual that submitted as is making the current complaint. Whomever agreed to Apple's terms told Apple, by way of agreeing to the contract, that they had full rights and authority to grant Apple the right to distribute the app with all the associated restrictions, etc. outlined in the contract. It would seem that when you consider the terms of the GPL, that person did not have the authority to claim such a thing. That person lied or, at best, was simply mistaken. This isn't Apple's fault. That's all I'm saying. Perhaps ultimately we agree on that point.
        hasenj 16y ago
        You don't get it. Open apps can't get on the iPhone because Apple disallows it. Apple is pulling it out, they control what software can or cannot get in. There's no way for anyone to install anything (legally, and without hassle) on the iTouch devices without Apple's permission.
        StavrosK 16y ago
        There definitely is a perfectly legal and convenient way to install anything: jailbreak it and put whatever you want on it.
        palish 16y ago
        Oooh! Someone said "Jailbreak"! I've been dying to ask: What kinds of awesome things can you do with a jailbroken iPhone? I know you can install VLC + some software to stream videos from some other computer via wifi, which is pretty sweet. What else? I've been considering Jailbreaking, but it would be cool to have a compelling, shiny reason.
        StavrosK 16y ago
        You can install lockinfo: http://thew0rd.com/wp-content/gallery/postrelated/lockinfo.png http://thew0rd.com/wp-content/gallery/postrelated/lockinfo.p...
    - jonhendry 16y ago
      The developer submitted it knowing that Apple's distribution approach was incompatible with the license. The developer failed. Apple said up front what they'll do for the developer. That doesn't include "whatever you ask us to do". Apple's completely in the clear. The developer's a moron.
- tzs 16y ago
  Because numerous other FLOSS licenses, including others that are copyleft licenses such as MS-PL, do not run into problems if someone uses code under those licenses in an app that they distribute through the App Store. The GPL ends up standing out as the "free" license that makes it hardest to actually distribute free software and reuse free code in other free software projects.
  - sprout 16y ago
    Hm, it seems to me it's very difficult to reuse the BSD code that underlies iOS. Yeah, you can use the code that Apple gives you, but as far as making modifications Apple actively makes it so you run into problems. In other words, talking about reuse is changing the subject. The important thing is freedom to modify the code you're using.
    - Locke1689 16y ago
      The important thing is freedom to modify the code you're using. As someone who prefers to license under the FreeBSD license -- no it's not. It's about contributing code to make software everywhere better (whether or not you can modify the result or not). Now, this is just my opinion, but so is yours and you should probably speak of it that way instead of like fact.
      - sprout 16y ago
        In essence, the GPL plays the long game and BSD plays the short game. This statement: >The GPL ends up standing out as the "free" license that makes it hardest to actually distribute free software and reuse free code in other free software projects. Is only true when you look at it immediately. In the long run, BSD licenses stand out as the ones that make it hardest to reuse code, because people don't have to think about reuse when they modify it, which is an important consideration. If you're just modifying some code for your company's internal use, not only are you not going to refuse to distribute it, you're going to avoid coding for situations that have wider applicability. And of course this is my opinion. That was clear when I said "the important thing." There's no need to pepper my speech with "I think" when I'm obviously stating things that are not factual.
lambda 16y ago
So, you would rather have Apple win, and everyone else lose, by allowing Apple to simply distribute any software the want under their own terms, without regard to the licensing terms its creator licenses it under? You would rather have Apple win, and users lose, by Apple getting free software to distribute on their platform while still being allowed to lock their users down? The FSF (and the VLC developers in question) would rather have their software distributed in the App Store, as long as Apple complies with the terms of the license. The Android Market has no problems with this (and even if it did, you can install apps that you don't get from the Market on an Android phone). By locking users down, not allowing them to install their own software except through the App Store, and not allowing applications to be distributed under licenses of their creators choosing in the App Store, Apple is limiting the software that users can use on their phone. Apple seems to have a policy of ignoring free software licenses in their app review process, until the developer actually complains, but the fact that they ignored and violated the license despite their draconian review process, and only pulling software once someone complains, seems calculated to allow them to blame the developers for the app's removal (as you are doing) rather than the blame being placed on their own policies, which are the real reason that users's freedom is restricted.
- alextgordon 16y ago
  To be honest, in this specific case I'd rather have VLC.
  - famsam 16y ago
    I like free software, too. That's why I have avoided apple consumer devices for years. I was offered one at work, but turned it down for something I could run software from any source on. Maybe this is a hard choice if VLC is the only free software you have seen that you want to run on your device, or if the freedom part of the equation is less important to you than just what software you have. For me, the attitude of Steve Jobs makes it a no-brainer.
- BigZaphod 16y ago
  Apple does not agree to abide by your terms. Instead, by clicking "I Agree" when you submit a new app, you (app submitter) is agreeing to abide by Apple's terms. That's an important distinction in this case. It's irrelevant if you'd like Apple to change their polices. (Though they may some day - they've changed and relaxed many things over the years.) The point is that someone told Apple they had all legal permissions required to allow Apple to distribute it the way they do, and since there was an actual legal contract involved, Apple trusted that person. That person was apparently mistaken. It is that person whom the FSF and/or the VLC dev should be angry about - not Apple. (At least in this case.) Yes, Apple's policies are calculated. That doesn't make them evil nor does it make them necessarily wrong. It sounds to me like you want your (GPL, etc) rules to trump Apple's rules. What gives you that right? The App Store is huge, popular, and everyone wants a piece of it. Apple created that success for themselves. You (or anyone else) has no basis to rush in and claim they deserve their own little slice of it just because. You play by Apple's rules until Apple changes their rules or don't play at all. Don't like it? Go somewhere else - that's your right which is given in exchange for Apple having the right to make their own rules.
random42 16y ago
You dont base your principles and stands on winning or losing, you base them on what is the right thing to do.

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
        I know it's not the same individual that submitted as is making the current complaint. Whomever agreed to Apple's terms told Apple, by way of agreeing to the contract, that they had full rights and authority to grant Apple the right to distribute the app with all the associated restrictions, etc. outlined in the contract. It would seem that when you consider the terms of the GPL, that person did not have the authority to claim such a thing. That person lied or, at best, was simply mistaken. This isn't Apple's fault. That's all I'm saying. Perhaps ultimately we agree on that point.
        hasenj 16y ago
        You don't get it. Open apps can't get on the iPhone because Apple disallows it. Apple is pulling it out, they control what software can or cannot get in. There's no way for anyone to install anything (legally, and without hassle) on the iTouch devices without Apple's permission.
        StavrosK 16y ago
        There definitely is a perfectly legal and convenient way to install anything: jailbreak it and put whatever you want on it.
        palish 16y ago
        Oooh! Someone said "Jailbreak"! I've been dying to ask: What kinds of awesome things can you do with a jailbroken iPhone? I know you can install VLC + some software to stream videos from some other computer via wifi, which is pretty sweet. What else? I've been considering Jailbreaking, but it would be cool to have a compelling, shiny reason.
        StavrosK 16y ago
        You can install lockinfo: http://thew0rd.com/wp-content/gallery/postrelated/lockinfo.png http://thew0rd.com/wp-content/gallery/postrelated/lockinfo.p...
  - jonhendry 16y ago
    The developer submitted it knowing that Apple's distribution approach was incompatible with the license. The developer failed. Apple said up front what they'll do for the developer. That doesn't include "whatever you ask us to do". Apple's completely in the clear. The developer's a moron.
tzs 16y ago
Because numerous other FLOSS licenses, including others that are copyleft licenses such as MS-PL, do not run into problems if someone uses code under those licenses in an app that they distribute through the App Store. The GPL ends up standing out as the "free" license that makes it hardest to actually distribute free software and reuse free code in other free software projects.
- sprout 16y ago
  Hm, it seems to me it's very difficult to reuse the BSD code that underlies iOS. Yeah, you can use the code that Apple gives you, but as far as making modifications Apple actively makes it so you run into problems. In other words, talking about reuse is changing the subject. The important thing is freedom to modify the code you're using.
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    The important thing is freedom to modify the code you're using. As someone who prefers to license under the FreeBSD license -- no it's not. It's about contributing code to make software everywhere better (whether or not you can modify the result or not). Now, this is just my opinion, but so is yours and you should probably speak of it that way instead of like fact.
    - sprout 16y ago
      In essence, the GPL plays the long game and BSD plays the short game. This statement: >The GPL ends up standing out as the "free" license that makes it hardest to actually distribute free software and reuse free code in other free software projects. Is only true when you look at it immediately. In the long run, BSD licenses stand out as the ones that make it hardest to reuse code, because people don't have to think about reuse when they modify it, which is an important consideration. If you're just modifying some code for your company's internal use, not only are you not going to refuse to distribute it, you're going to avoid coding for situations that have wider applicability. And of course this is my opinion. That was clear when I said "the important thing." There's no need to pepper my speech with "I think" when I'm obviously stating things that are not factual.

lambda 16y ago

So, you would rather have Apple win, and everyone else lose, by allowing Apple to simply distribute any software the want under their own terms, without regard to the licensing terms its creator licenses it under? You would rather have Apple win, and users lose, by Apple getting free software to distribute on their platform while still being allowed to lock their users down? The FSF (and the VLC developers in question) would rather have their software distributed in the App Store, as long as Apple complies with the terms of the license. The Android Market has no problems with this (and even if it did, you can install apps that you don't get from the Market on an Android phone). By locking users down, not allowing them to install their own software except through the App Store, and not allowing applications to be distributed under licenses of their creators choosing in the App Store, Apple is limiting the software that users can use on their phone. Apple seems to have a policy of ignoring free software licenses in their app review process, until the developer actually complains, but the fact that they ignored and violated the license despite their draconian review process, and only pulling software once someone complains, seems calculated to allow them to blame the developers for the app's removal (as you are doing) rather than the blame being placed on their own policies, which are the real reason that users's freedom is restricted.

alextgordon 16y ago
To be honest, in this specific case I'd rather have VLC.
- famsam 16y ago
  I like free software, too. That's why I have avoided apple consumer devices for years. I was offered one at work, but turned it down for something I could run software from any source on. Maybe this is a hard choice if VLC is the only free software you have seen that you want to run on your device, or if the freedom part of the equation is less important to you than just what software you have. For me, the attitude of Steve Jobs makes it a no-brainer.
BigZaphod 16y ago
Apple does not agree to abide by your terms. Instead, by clicking "I Agree" when you submit a new app, you (app submitter) is agreeing to abide by Apple's terms. That's an important distinction in this case. It's irrelevant if you'd like Apple to change their polices. (Though they may some day - they've changed and relaxed many things over the years.) The point is that someone told Apple they had all legal permissions required to allow Apple to distribute it the way they do, and since there was an actual legal contract involved, Apple trusted that person. That person was apparently mistaken. It is that person whom the FSF and/or the VLC dev should be angry about - not Apple. (At least in this case.) Yes, Apple's policies are calculated. That doesn't make them evil nor does it make them necessarily wrong. It sounds to me like you want your (GPL, etc) rules to trump Apple's rules. What gives you that right? The App Store is huge, popular, and everyone wants a piece of it. Apple created that success for themselves. You (or anyone else) has no basis to rush in and claim they deserve their own little slice of it just because. You play by Apple's rules until Apple changes their rules or don't play at all. Don't like it? Go somewhere else - that's your right which is given in exchange for Apple having the right to make their own rules.

random42 16y ago

You dont base your principles and stands on winning or losing, you base them on what is the right thing to do.