5 ms·

This is a better article on the matter. http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/vlc-enforcement/ http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/vlc-enforcement/ Thanks for tak

by chadp 16y ago

This is a better article on the matter. http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/vlc-enforcement/ http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/vlc-enforcement/ Thanks for taking a stand, but isn't it a given that apple owns and controls the app store. If one doesn't like the rules, don't buy apple and don't make apps for their store. Simple no?

st3fan 16y ago
It is well known that GPL licensed software on the App Store is currently a grey area. The developers of VLC for the iPhone, Applidium, took a risk with this app. Interestingly that risk initially was Apple not approving the application. But now that risk has actually become their fellow VLC developers turning against them and filing copyright infringements with Apple to get the app removed from the store. Nobody wins. Sad.
- prodigal_erik 16y ago
  The grey area is only that GPLv2 lacked defenses against Tivoization. It's not as if authors who use the GPL are actually happy with end users being unable to circulate modified builds. This a win for anyone who doesn't want to subsidize Apple's dystopian future.
  - brownleej 16y ago
    How is this a win for anyone? Apple isn't desperate to have GPL'd software on iOS; they probably like it, but they don't need it. This won't make Apple change their policy on sideloading apps. Furthermore, anyone who doesn't want to subsidize Apple's dystopian future will choose to buy a competitor's product whether VLC is on iOS or not. The only party's substantially affected here are iOS users, who are now deprived of a program to play more video types. Though some of them may feel strongly enough about this to switch to an alternative platform, most won't, because I think that most of Apple's users value a seamless user experience over their personal freedom to tinker with their device. Because of this preference, they will now be deprived of certain software. How has anyone won?
    - jjs 16y ago
      > anyone who doesn't want to subsidize Apple's dystopian future will choose to buy a competitor's product whether VLC is on iOS or not. The only party's substantially affected here are iOS users, who are now deprived of a program to play more video types. If you don't like Apple's dystopian future, then reducing the incentives to own an iOS device sounds more effective than merely not subsidizing the platform.
      - brownleej 16y ago
        I see your point. As I hinted at, I think a lack of GPL software in the App Store will have a negligible effect on actual iOS usage. Because of this, it makes people's iOS experience worse without making the overall situation better.
tzs 16y ago
That link cites the FSF's earlier analysis of the GNU Go case. About one month after the FSF published that and called for Apple to change their rules, Apple changed their rules. The current terms of service appear to eliminate the problem the FSF complained about. One VLC developer says that it is fine under the current TOS to distribute VLC on the App Store: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1850340 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1850340
- uxp 16y ago
  If I'm not mistaken, VideoLAN never built a version of VLC for iOS devices, but another developer did. Apple has already changed their Licensing restrictions to comply with software such as VLC, as you said. This sounds like a giant mess of FUD and clever trolling. The FSF is complaining about something that both Apple and VideoLAN had no part of, but that's who they can point fingers at. Why isn't anyone complaining about Applidium, who were the ones that coerced VLC into the app store, which effectively "changed the licensing terms" of a project who's licence says that it cannot be re-licensed? edit: the above paragraph is referring to the mess that the FSF article is claiming to be an issue, not the fact that VLC's licence can comply with the terms of the app store. In all reality, Apple wants every piece of quality[1] software on the planet to be distributed through their store, even if it is free and can be obtained elsewhere. The GPL/FSF guys seem to be more restrictive about where their software can and cannot be released than Apple is restrictive on what kind of software can be included in their store at this point. It is making everyone look bad. Can't we just get along? [1] Ambiguous term, I know.
martinkallstrom 16y ago
Just as Apple is free to dictate the rules governing the App Store, anyone is free to voice their opinions with the purpose of influencing Apple's decisions. Yes, your way is simpler. In some situations, the non-simple way is the right decision.

by chadp 16y ago

st3fan 16y ago

It is well known that GPL licensed software on the App Store is currently a grey area. The developers of VLC for the iPhone, Applidium, took a risk with this app. Interestingly that risk initially was Apple not approving the application. But now that risk has actually become their fellow VLC developers turning against them and filing copyright infringements with Apple to get the app removed from the store. Nobody wins. Sad.

prodigal_erik 16y ago
The grey area is only that GPLv2 lacked defenses against Tivoization. It's not as if authors who use the GPL are actually happy with end users being unable to circulate modified builds. This a win for anyone who doesn't want to subsidize Apple's dystopian future.
- brownleej 16y ago
  How is this a win for anyone? Apple isn't desperate to have GPL'd software on iOS; they probably like it, but they don't need it. This won't make Apple change their policy on sideloading apps. Furthermore, anyone who doesn't want to subsidize Apple's dystopian future will choose to buy a competitor's product whether VLC is on iOS or not. The only party's substantially affected here are iOS users, who are now deprived of a program to play more video types. Though some of them may feel strongly enough about this to switch to an alternative platform, most won't, because I think that most of Apple's users value a seamless user experience over their personal freedom to tinker with their device. Because of this preference, they will now be deprived of certain software. How has anyone won?
  - jjs 16y ago
    > anyone who doesn't want to subsidize Apple's dystopian future will choose to buy a competitor's product whether VLC is on iOS or not. The only party's substantially affected here are iOS users, who are now deprived of a program to play more video types. If you don't like Apple's dystopian future, then reducing the incentives to own an iOS device sounds more effective than merely not subsidizing the platform.
    - brownleej 16y ago
      I see your point. As I hinted at, I think a lack of GPL software in the App Store will have a negligible effect on actual iOS usage. Because of this, it makes people's iOS experience worse without making the overall situation better.

tzs 16y ago

That link cites the FSF's earlier analysis of the GNU Go case. About one month after the FSF published that and called for Apple to change their rules, Apple changed their rules. The current terms of service appear to eliminate the problem the FSF complained about. One VLC developer says that it is fine under the current TOS to distribute VLC on the App Store: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1850340 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1850340

uxp 16y ago
If I'm not mistaken, VideoLAN never built a version of VLC for iOS devices, but another developer did. Apple has already changed their Licensing restrictions to comply with software such as VLC, as you said. This sounds like a giant mess of FUD and clever trolling. The FSF is complaining about something that both Apple and VideoLAN had no part of, but that's who they can point fingers at. Why isn't anyone complaining about Applidium, who were the ones that coerced VLC into the app store, which effectively "changed the licensing terms" of a project who's licence says that it cannot be re-licensed? edit: the above paragraph is referring to the mess that the FSF article is claiming to be an issue, not the fact that VLC's licence can comply with the terms of the app store. In all reality, Apple wants every piece of quality[1] software on the planet to be distributed through their store, even if it is free and can be obtained elsewhere. The GPL/FSF guys seem to be more restrictive about where their software can and cannot be released than Apple is restrictive on what kind of software can be included in their store at this point. It is making everyone look bad. Can't we just get along? [1] Ambiguous term, I know.

martinkallstrom 16y ago

Just as Apple is free to dictate the rules governing the App Store, anyone is free to voice their opinions with the purpose of influencing Apple's decisions. Yes, your way is simpler. In some situations, the non-simple way is the right decision.