14 ms·

VLC for iOS Pulled from the App Store

209 points by sathyabhat 16y ago

kranner 16y ago
Will someone please summarize? The link makes only a vague statement about incompatibility between GPL code and the App Store...
- sanxiyn 16y ago
  FSF said it best: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-...
  - ugh 16y ago
    A contentious view: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1853496 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1853496; http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1849687 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1849687
  - biot 16y ago
    So if someone wanted to be an asshole, they could send takedown notices for Pixie Scheme III (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2059242 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.
    - rimantas 16y ago
      Seems like a good way for closed source apps to remove their open source competition. Not all open source uses GPL, thankfully.
    - abrahamsen 16y ago
      "Someone" needs to be the legal owner of the GPL'ed code in question for the takedown notice to have any legal meaning.
      - jonhendry 16y ago
        But that could be a tiny portion of the code overall. One developer with a grudge can cause a problem, even if that developer has a tenuous connection to the project.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
    - jbk 16y ago
      If it has some code there, yes.
  - jbk 16y ago
    FSF is wrong and totally biased. Not to mention outdated analysis... http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-December/078262.html http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Decembe...
- callahad 16y ago
  http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-October/077325.html http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-October...
- kurtsiegfried 16y ago
  http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-October/077325.html http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-October... 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.
  - huhtenberg 16y ago
    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.
    - sanxiyn 16y ago
      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.
      - masklinn 16y ago
        > It was Apple's choice. 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.
        Schmidt 16y ago
        Or they could use their approval process to figure out that the licence was incompatible with their ToS.
- tzs 16y ago
  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.
  - rahoulb 16y ago
    So if the original authors of VLC (not the authors of the iOS app) granted that permission to Apple then this wouldn't be an issue?
    - abrahamsen 16y ago
      Yes. That might be quite a lot of people though.
    - tzs 16y ago
      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.
mbenjaminsmith 16y ago
How does this work for people who've downloaded it? I've got the better part of Family Guy's run on my iPhone playing with VLC. That combo has brought me more enjoyment than all of my other apps combined. On a side note: I recently made the difficult decision of creating a library from scratch since the only one available was GPL. I guess that was the correct decision after all?
- drivebyacct2 16y ago
  A library of what? For what?
- paxswill 16y ago
  Going off of what has happened in the past, you can keep using that copy you downloaded (and the use the copy on your computer to load it onto more devices) as long as you want. It's just not sold anymore.
  - mbenjaminsmith 16y ago
    That's great to know. I'm really glad I caught it when I did.
  - StavrosK 16y ago
    You'll also probably be able to get it from other sources if you're jailbroken.
- Xuzz 16y ago
  Apple does have a kill switch, but they don't use it for situations like this one (or, actually, they haven't used it at all so far). You can keep using it, but backup that .ipa file.
  - J3L2404 16y ago
    How does the kill switch work, is it only when you update the software(app or OS?) or can the code sign certificate be invalidated anytime?
drivebyacct2 16y ago
"This end should not have come to a surprise to anyone." Also, is it terribly selfish of me to find this enjoyable partly because of the App Store apologists and partly because it means there will be more focus on VLC for Android?
- melito 16y ago
  The VLC iOS app was developed by a company in France named Applidium, not the core VLC dev team. Applidium develops iOS apps. So no. This does not mean there will be more focus on VLC for Android. If anything I think this is a bad thing for all software currently using the GPL. I understand the claim and ultimately it's the author's decision, but I feel that using the GPL in this fashion is ironic at best and hypocritical at worst.
  - mtvartia 16y ago
    What is ironic or hypocritical about it? There are general licenses which provide more freedom to the users (including limiting freedom of others in derivative works, which might be ironic in somebody's eyes), and this software uses a license which prohibits limiting distribution related freedoms (among others) because its authors wanted it that way. It is not ironic or hypocritical, it is only being consistent with the choice. (Do you mean that using GPL in the first place is ironic or hypocritical in some way?) If you choose a license and don't follow it, what is the point of using that license? By using GPL, you deliberately give a piece of software a life of its own. Because of the license, the action taken is not merely the author's decision, but something anyone can do, even if the author didn't wish for it (although it is only natural that the author is the first one to pursue compliance with the license he chose.) This is not a bad thing for GPL'ed software. Instead, it is exactly what is (or at least should be) expected from using GPL. As said, there are also other licenses to use. If your expectations are different, use different license and don't submit to a license you find inadequate.
    - demallien 16y ago
      Well, ironic in the sense that the GPL is supposed to keep software free (libre), but in this case, it really restricts the end user by not allowing them even to load the app. You have to wonder who was being hurt by having GPL software on the App Store - if you're an actual iPhone developer, then you can most certainly download the source provided by Applidium under the GPL, and build your own copy of the software. If you're a dev that works on other platforms that uses the same GPL code, you can still download the code and use it. If you're not a dev, then you couldn't care less about access to the code or not, because as a non-dev, you can't use it. So just who's rights were being trampled on by the code being on the App Store? Remi's stance is not principled. Everyone that would want to have access to the source had access to the source. He has done this because of some idealogical dislike that he apparently has of the Apple ecosystem. Fine, it's within his rights, but he doesn't get to claim that he was the principled one in this incident, quite the contrary.
sanxiyn 16y ago
Of course this is App Store's problem, and VLC for iOS should be no problem to install from Cydia.
- Xuzz 16y ago
  (If any VLC developers happen to read this, I'm happy to help you package it up for submission to Cydia.)
  - jbk 16y ago
    Please do so... Just remember to name it "VLC" or "VLC media player" and not "VLC Media Player"
    - etherealG 16y ago
      mind clarifying please? why would this be important?
      - TheCoreh 16y ago
        Maybe "Media Player" is a trademark of someone? Maybe they already had problems with that before.
sanxiyn 16y ago
Battle for Wesnoth had the same problem: http://lwn.net/Articles/396535/ http://lwn.net/Articles/396535/
adulau 16y ago
If you are curious about the differences of terms in the iTunes store policy and what has been introduced by the "Mac App Store": http://www.goodiff.org/changeset/597/apple/www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html http://www.goodiff.org/changeset/597/apple/www.apple.com/leg...
sanxiyn 16y ago
It seems that this is the best analysis for now. http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-November/077457.html http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Novembe... Apple changed App Store terms. Previously: The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party Now: ...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 So either GPLv2 is a valid end user license agreement, or if it isn't, one just needs some out-of-bound mechanism that users and developers agree on GPLv2.
- jbk 16y ago
  Well, you have missed my update here: http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-December/078262.html http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Decembe...
schrototo 16y ago
So how does this in any way enhance the freedom of users?
- rflrob 16y ago
  I suspect the argument is that by showing they're serious about enforcing the GNU license, they're making the current closed ecosystem less attractive, so either a truly Free system will be able to compete more equally, or the current system will decide to become more open. I'm not sure whether I agree with that argument factually, but I respect the principles behind it.
- vilya 16y ago
  The GPL is not about freedom for users, it's about freedom for source code.
  - rlpb 16y ago
    According to the FSF, it is about freedom for users. "Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
    - tiles 16y ago
      Freedoms which releasing any GPL'd code under the old App stores terms would have been negated.
    - moxiemk1 16y ago
      Freedom 2 is not absolute, since I can't help my neighbor by making an improved version of the software that compiles against closed source libraries and distributing it to them. Same with freedom 3 - if I make changes in that manner, I may not distribute them. As a user, I am less free with the GPL than other licenses. Not that this is a bad thing, but if the goal of the FSF is freedom of the user, they've got a ways to go.
yason 16y ago
Why isn't there a third-party app store, by the way? iPhone only runs executables signed by Apple? I suppose that on Android, if Google's Android market sucks anyone can create a new market that ranks the applications better or simply lures in better apps?
- jbk 16y ago
  Yes, it will be probably on Cydia soon, but this is only for jailbroken devices...
- mike-cardwell 16y ago
  On Android you'd be able to just put your app on your website and let people download it. Or email it to them as an attachment. Or any of the other traditional ways of distributing applications.
  - Argorak 16y ago
    Mind that this is only true for vanilla Android, not for all Android phones.
    - mike-cardwell 16y ago
      I didn't realise that. I thought that they all allowed apps to be installed from outside the market. How common is this restriction?
      - CrazedGeek 16y ago
        All AT&T phones have the restriction, as well as most Android ebook readers.
- code_duck 16y ago
  Yes, in a stock iOS installation Apples App Store is the only way to install software. Each package must be digitally signed by Apple. That is what 'jailbreaking' is all about: exploiting a flaw in some existing software to execute an arbitrary binary which breaks that restriction. Then you can use third party software repos.
jbk 16y ago
Disclaimer: VideoLAN Chairman and lead VLC developer here. I've written the most important analysis on the matter http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-November/077457.html http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Novembe... and http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-December/078262.html http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Decembe... Some VLC developers (for Mac mainly), with the company Applidium, have ported VLC on iOS. Applidium published it on the store, for free. Some developer complained (quite lately, btw...) afterwards and quoted a FSF analysis. Their analysis was totally wrong (spoke about redistribution), and based on old version of AppStore terms. After my remarks about changes of the AppStore terms that made this analysis obsolete and wrong, they shifted their criticism onto another part, which was the "usage" part of the ToS. They complained that the terms did not allow all uses, especially commercial ones. Indeed, one part could be interpreted in different ways. Therefore, I've mailed Apple Copyright Agent for explanation, twice. Once in November, once in December... Apple has refused to answer, to explain or to help in any matter. They then decided to pull the Application unilaterally from the AppStore. Of course, they are allowed to do that, and noone can complain, but this is yet another push from Apple against VLC, that adds to the very long list of past issues. It just makes me think Apple doesn't really want competition...
- jonhendry 16y ago
  "Of course, they are allowed to do that, and noone can complain, but this is yet another push from Apple against VLC, that adds to the very long list of past issues. It just makes me think Apple doesn't really want competition" Maybe they don't want the hassle of dealing with flakey politics-ridden groups who don't have their shit together.
  - jbk 16y ago
    Sure, and maybe you could be polite... Or just try to understand what open source groups means...
    - jonhendry 16y ago
      Apparently "open source group" means "high maintenance and unprofessional goalpost-shifters who suffer the delusion that they are in charge".
jawee 16y ago
This is one reason why I have no desire to use Apple products and have essentially retired my iOS device. This restricts a great library of possible software from ever making it to my device and restricts the possibility of a decent freedom that some developers wish to give. This would not be a big deal if you could distribute software like on a normal computer (or most other mobile OSs.. including Blackberry, Palm OS (historical at least), Android, Windows Mobile (historical at least), Maemo, and so on). I shouldn't have to worry about the official distribution channel's restrictions imposing on what is essentially my computer as a whole.
- st3fan 16y ago
  Uhhh it is not Apple that restricts software. It is the GPL.
  - chappi42 16y ago
    No, it is Apple's ToS and it is appropriate imho that GPL software cannot be distributed through the iJail AppStore. May people choose other less restricted platforms instead.
  - jawee 16y ago
    They restrict in different ways. GPL restricts in order to give more freedom to people who wish to use software in certain ways; apple is protecting developer rights, in a blanket way that not all developers want.
ryanpetrich 16y ago
Now up in Cydia on my repo: http://rpetri.ch/repo http://rpetri.ch/repo Adjusted source to allow installation to /Applications is here: http://rpetri.ch/github/MobileVLC http://rpetri.ch/github/MobileVLC
- jbk 16y ago
  Nice! Could you submit patches that make sense for upstream?
sdhjtkjty 16y ago
----- http://www.etradinglife.com http://www.etradinglife.com ------ ----- http://www.etradinglife.com http://www.etradinglife.com ------ ----- http://www.etradinglife.com http://www.etradinglife.com ------ ----- http://www.etradinglife.com http://www.etradinglife.com ------ ----- http://www.etradinglife.com http://www.etradinglife.com ------ ----- http://www.etradinglife.com http://www.etradinglife.com ------ ----- http://www.etradinglife.com http://www.etradinglife.com ------ ---- http://www.etradinglife.com http://www.etradinglife.com ------
gaiusparx 16y ago
According to TUAW http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-store/ http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-stor..., its one Rémi Denis-Courmont employed under Nokia who waged the campaign. How true is it? Sounds more like a corporate conspiracy than a fight for principle.
- CopyrightTroll 16y ago
  Exactly. I think it's funny that these kids think Apple would care about some GPL principle, when it never mattered.
- martythemaniak 16y ago
  What a bunch of ugly, hateful people. VLC developers devote thousands of hours of their own free time so users can have a FREE kick-ass piece of software, and what they get in return is being called "freetard", "prick" and "asshole", just because Apple refuses to honour their license. I thought my opinion of Apple fanboys was pretty low already, but it seems it's got much further down to go.
jarin 16y ago
I hate to say it, but this is why I have a big problem with the GPL. Not for infrastructure software like operating systems, web servers, and databases (where I think it is appropriate and beneficial), but for code intended for use in end-user applications (including web applications). I think licenses like BSD, MIT, and Apache spur more innovation in those cases. You can make the argument that companies have no incentive to contribute back to open source projects without copyleft licenses, but projects like Webkit and Rails have proven otherwise.
- dman 16y ago
  Can you be more specific about the problem ?
  - jarin 16y ago
    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." http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-store/ 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.
    - wvenable 16y ago
      > 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.
    - 16y ago
oslic 16y ago
So is this what GPL developers consider a "win?" The GPL seems designed to create something for developers to fuss about. The net effect is pretty stupid compared to BSD/MIT/Apache. It's been long ago proved that the community deals fairly with contributions of any kind. The only difference then with GPL is that it locks out many legitimate uses (businesses) that might have otherwise been available. That's not "free," that's "restrictive," no matter how many times Stallman bangs his drum.
- voxcogitatio 16y ago
  No this is what a GPL developer considers a "loss". Specifically, yet another demonstration of why developing for someone else's walled garden is a bad idea.
st3fan 16y ago
Looks like Rémi Denis-Courmont pulled his blog and his resume. What is going on there? His posting is aggregated on planet vlc, but it does not link to the original.
- w1ntermute 16y ago
  Managed to pull it through the Google Cache into Google Docs, from which I was able to obtain the original PDF: http://ompldr.org/vNndvaA/CV.pdf http://ompldr.org/vNndvaA/CV.pdf http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3232537/docs/CV.pdf http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3232537/docs/CV.pdf What I'm guessing is of interest: Email: remi@remlab.net Ph. #: (+358) 50 487 6315
mikecane 16y ago
Putting aside all the issues involved here, what I don't understand to begin with is why any other iOS dev has not done an app that can play back the kind of AVI files most people have in their collections to begin with. Is it that hard? Or did devs shy away from it because they never expected Apple to approve such an app? Now that Apple has, will someone else come in with something else? This is a capability that's truly needed. There's just no way I'm going to ever convert my AVIs to MP4s. It'd be faster and cheaper just to get an Archos Android tablet to play those videos. (Note I mention Archos specifically because for years they've developed that capability and have ported that native software to now run under Android.)
sdizdar 16y ago
I would like to understand something here. As far as I was explained by experts (I'm not a lawyer) GPL license does not allow to publish software on closed / proprietary platforms controlled by ToS similar to Apple AppStore. My understanding it is not that VLC on iOS is breaking AppStore ToS but GPL license which is very restrictive when you release something based on it but it is not open sourced. Am I wrong here?
kevinchen 16y ago
So Rémi Denis-Courmont is basically putting his open software principles ahead of the utility users would get on their iPhones. Very noble indeed...
- zmmmmm 16y ago
  One might equally say that Apple is putting their App Store principles and desire to control their products ahead of the utility of their users. Very noble indeed ...
  - halostatue 16y ago
    Apple isn't trying to claim a moral high ground here.
adaml_623 16y ago
I don't have an iPhone because of this walled garden approach to software on it. I'm glad that this has happened as maybe there will be fewer walled garden type situations in the future. It is a pity for users who miss out on VLC but they've made a choice by buying a product that's locked to a single marketplace for apps and they have to live with that.
ryan-allen 16y ago
This is very disappointing. VLC is a great product and so are the iPhone and iPad devices. Not having to convert video and being able to play them on the devices was very welcome! It's such a shame... This to me has a similar kind of feel to patent trolling.
- jbk 16y ago
  We'll work to get it back there...

209 points by sathyabhat 16y ago

Will someone please summarize? The link makes only a vague statement about incompatibility between GPL code and the App Store...

sanxiyn 16y ago
FSF said it best: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-...
- ugh 16y ago
  A contentious view: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1853496 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1853496; http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1849687 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1849687
- biot 16y ago
  So if someone wanted to be an asshole, they could send takedown notices for Pixie Scheme III (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2059242 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.
  - rimantas 16y ago
    Seems like a good way for closed source apps to remove their open source competition. Not all open source uses GPL, thankfully.
  - abrahamsen 16y ago
    "Someone" needs to be the legal owner of the GPL'ed code in question for the takedown notice to have any legal meaning.
    - jonhendry 16y ago
      But that could be a tiny portion of the code overall. One developer with a grudge can cause a problem, even if that developer has a tenuous connection to the project.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
  - jbk 16y ago
    If it has some code there, yes.
- jbk 16y ago
  FSF is wrong and totally biased. Not to mention outdated analysis... http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-December/078262.html http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Decembe...
callahad 16y ago
http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-October/077325.html http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-October...
kurtsiegfried 16y ago
http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-October/077325.html http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-October... 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.
- huhtenberg 16y ago
  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.
  - sanxiyn 16y ago
    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.
    - masklinn 16y ago
      > It was Apple's choice. 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.
      - Schmidt 16y ago
        Or they could use their approval process to figure out that the licence was incompatible with their ToS.
tzs 16y ago
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.
- rahoulb 16y ago
  So if the original authors of VLC (not the authors of the iOS app) granted that permission to Apple then this wouldn't be an issue?
  - abrahamsen 16y ago
    Yes. That might be quite a lot of people though.
  - tzs 16y ago
    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.

mbenjaminsmith 16y ago

How does this work for people who've downloaded it? I've got the better part of Family Guy's run on my iPhone playing with VLC. That combo has brought me more enjoyment than all of my other apps combined. On a side note: I recently made the difficult decision of creating a library from scratch since the only one available was GPL. I guess that was the correct decision after all?

drivebyacct2 16y ago
A library of what? For what?
paxswill 16y ago
Going off of what has happened in the past, you can keep using that copy you downloaded (and the use the copy on your computer to load it onto more devices) as long as you want. It's just not sold anymore.
- mbenjaminsmith 16y ago
  That's great to know. I'm really glad I caught it when I did.
- StavrosK 16y ago
  You'll also probably be able to get it from other sources if you're jailbroken.
Xuzz 16y ago
Apple does have a kill switch, but they don't use it for situations like this one (or, actually, they haven't used it at all so far). You can keep using it, but backup that .ipa file.
- J3L2404 16y ago
  How does the kill switch work, is it only when you update the software(app or OS?) or can the code sign certificate be invalidated anytime?

drivebyacct2 16y ago

"This end should not have come to a surprise to anyone." Also, is it terribly selfish of me to find this enjoyable partly because of the App Store apologists and partly because it means there will be more focus on VLC for Android?

melito 16y ago
The VLC iOS app was developed by a company in France named Applidium, not the core VLC dev team. Applidium develops iOS apps. So no. This does not mean there will be more focus on VLC for Android. If anything I think this is a bad thing for all software currently using the GPL. I understand the claim and ultimately it's the author's decision, but I feel that using the GPL in this fashion is ironic at best and hypocritical at worst.
- mtvartia 16y ago
  What is ironic or hypocritical about it? There are general licenses which provide more freedom to the users (including limiting freedom of others in derivative works, which might be ironic in somebody's eyes), and this software uses a license which prohibits limiting distribution related freedoms (among others) because its authors wanted it that way. It is not ironic or hypocritical, it is only being consistent with the choice. (Do you mean that using GPL in the first place is ironic or hypocritical in some way?) If you choose a license and don't follow it, what is the point of using that license? By using GPL, you deliberately give a piece of software a life of its own. Because of the license, the action taken is not merely the author's decision, but something anyone can do, even if the author didn't wish for it (although it is only natural that the author is the first one to pursue compliance with the license he chose.) This is not a bad thing for GPL'ed software. Instead, it is exactly what is (or at least should be) expected from using GPL. As said, there are also other licenses to use. If your expectations are different, use different license and don't submit to a license you find inadequate.
  - demallien 16y ago
    Well, ironic in the sense that the GPL is supposed to keep software free (libre), but in this case, it really restricts the end user by not allowing them even to load the app. You have to wonder who was being hurt by having GPL software on the App Store - if you're an actual iPhone developer, then you can most certainly download the source provided by Applidium under the GPL, and build your own copy of the software. If you're a dev that works on other platforms that uses the same GPL code, you can still download the code and use it. If you're not a dev, then you couldn't care less about access to the code or not, because as a non-dev, you can't use it. So just who's rights were being trampled on by the code being on the App Store? Remi's stance is not principled. Everyone that would want to have access to the source had access to the source. He has done this because of some idealogical dislike that he apparently has of the Apple ecosystem. Fine, it's within his rights, but he doesn't get to claim that he was the principled one in this incident, quite the contrary.

sanxiyn 16y ago

Of course this is App Store's problem, and VLC for iOS should be no problem to install from Cydia.

Xuzz 16y ago
(If any VLC developers happen to read this, I'm happy to help you package it up for submission to Cydia.)
- jbk 16y ago
  Please do so... Just remember to name it "VLC" or "VLC media player" and not "VLC Media Player"
  - etherealG 16y ago
    mind clarifying please? why would this be important?
    - TheCoreh 16y ago
      Maybe "Media Player" is a trademark of someone? Maybe they already had problems with that before.

sanxiyn 16y ago

Battle for Wesnoth had the same problem: http://lwn.net/Articles/396535/ http://lwn.net/Articles/396535/

adulau 16y ago

If you are curious about the differences of terms in the iTunes store policy and what has been introduced by the "Mac App Store": http://www.goodiff.org/changeset/597/apple/www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html http://www.goodiff.org/changeset/597/apple/www.apple.com/leg...

sanxiyn 16y ago

It seems that this is the best analysis for now. http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-November/077457.html http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Novembe... Apple changed App Store terms. Previously: The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party Now: ...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 So either GPLv2 is a valid end user license agreement, or if it isn't, one just needs some out-of-bound mechanism that users and developers agree on GPLv2.

jbk 16y ago
Well, you have missed my update here: http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-December/078262.html http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Decembe...

schrototo 16y ago

So how does this in any way enhance the freedom of users?

rflrob 16y ago
I suspect the argument is that by showing they're serious about enforcing the GNU license, they're making the current closed ecosystem less attractive, so either a truly Free system will be able to compete more equally, or the current system will decide to become more open. I'm not sure whether I agree with that argument factually, but I respect the principles behind it.
vilya 16y ago
The GPL is not about freedom for users, it's about freedom for source code.
- rlpb 16y ago
  According to the FSF, it is about freedom for users. "Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
  - tiles 16y ago
    Freedoms which releasing any GPL'd code under the old App stores terms would have been negated.
  - moxiemk1 16y ago
    Freedom 2 is not absolute, since I can't help my neighbor by making an improved version of the software that compiles against closed source libraries and distributing it to them. Same with freedom 3 - if I make changes in that manner, I may not distribute them. As a user, I am less free with the GPL than other licenses. Not that this is a bad thing, but if the goal of the FSF is freedom of the user, they've got a ways to go.

yason 16y ago

Why isn't there a third-party app store, by the way? iPhone only runs executables signed by Apple? I suppose that on Android, if Google's Android market sucks anyone can create a new market that ranks the applications better or simply lures in better apps?

jbk 16y ago
Yes, it will be probably on Cydia soon, but this is only for jailbroken devices...
mike-cardwell 16y ago
On Android you'd be able to just put your app on your website and let people download it. Or email it to them as an attachment. Or any of the other traditional ways of distributing applications.
- Argorak 16y ago
  Mind that this is only true for vanilla Android, not for all Android phones.
  - mike-cardwell 16y ago
    I didn't realise that. I thought that they all allowed apps to be installed from outside the market. How common is this restriction?
    - CrazedGeek 16y ago
      All AT&T phones have the restriction, as well as most Android ebook readers.
code_duck 16y ago
Yes, in a stock iOS installation Apples App Store is the only way to install software. Each package must be digitally signed by Apple. That is what 'jailbreaking' is all about: exploiting a flaw in some existing software to execute an arbitrary binary which breaks that restriction. Then you can use third party software repos.

jbk 16y ago

Disclaimer: VideoLAN Chairman and lead VLC developer here. I've written the most important analysis on the matter http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-November/077457.html http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Novembe... and http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-December/078262.html http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Decembe... Some VLC developers (for Mac mainly), with the company Applidium, have ported VLC on iOS. Applidium published it on the store, for free. Some developer complained (quite lately, btw...) afterwards and quoted a FSF analysis. Their analysis was totally wrong (spoke about redistribution), and based on old version of AppStore terms. After my remarks about changes of the AppStore terms that made this analysis obsolete and wrong, they shifted their criticism onto another part, which was the "usage" part of the ToS. They complained that the terms did not allow all uses, especially commercial ones. Indeed, one part could be interpreted in different ways. Therefore, I've mailed Apple Copyright Agent for explanation, twice. Once in November, once in December... Apple has refused to answer, to explain or to help in any matter. They then decided to pull the Application unilaterally from the AppStore. Of course, they are allowed to do that, and noone can complain, but this is yet another push from Apple against VLC, that adds to the very long list of past issues. It just makes me think Apple doesn't really want competition...

jonhendry 16y ago
"Of course, they are allowed to do that, and noone can complain, but this is yet another push from Apple against VLC, that adds to the very long list of past issues. It just makes me think Apple doesn't really want competition" Maybe they don't want the hassle of dealing with flakey politics-ridden groups who don't have their shit together.
- jbk 16y ago
  Sure, and maybe you could be polite... Or just try to understand what open source groups means...
  - jonhendry 16y ago
    Apparently "open source group" means "high maintenance and unprofessional goalpost-shifters who suffer the delusion that they are in charge".

jawee 16y ago

This is one reason why I have no desire to use Apple products and have essentially retired my iOS device. This restricts a great library of possible software from ever making it to my device and restricts the possibility of a decent freedom that some developers wish to give. This would not be a big deal if you could distribute software like on a normal computer (or most other mobile OSs.. including Blackberry, Palm OS (historical at least), Android, Windows Mobile (historical at least), Maemo, and so on). I shouldn't have to worry about the official distribution channel's restrictions imposing on what is essentially my computer as a whole.

st3fan 16y ago
Uhhh it is not Apple that restricts software. It is the GPL.
- chappi42 16y ago
  No, it is Apple's ToS and it is appropriate imho that GPL software cannot be distributed through the iJail AppStore. May people choose other less restricted platforms instead.
- jawee 16y ago
  They restrict in different ways. GPL restricts in order to give more freedom to people who wish to use software in certain ways; apple is protecting developer rights, in a blanket way that not all developers want.

ryanpetrich 16y ago

Now up in Cydia on my repo: http://rpetri.ch/repo http://rpetri.ch/repo Adjusted source to allow installation to /Applications is here: http://rpetri.ch/github/MobileVLC http://rpetri.ch/github/MobileVLC

jbk 16y ago
Nice! Could you submit patches that make sense for upstream?

sdhjtkjty 16y ago

----- http://www.etradinglife.com http://www.etradinglife.com ------ ----- http://www.etradinglife.com http://www.etradinglife.com ------ ----- http://www.etradinglife.com http://www.etradinglife.com ------ ----- http://www.etradinglife.com http://www.etradinglife.com ------ ----- http://www.etradinglife.com http://www.etradinglife.com ------ ----- http://www.etradinglife.com http://www.etradinglife.com ------ ----- http://www.etradinglife.com http://www.etradinglife.com ------ ---- http://www.etradinglife.com http://www.etradinglife.com ------

gaiusparx 16y ago

According to TUAW http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-store/ http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-stor..., its one Rémi Denis-Courmont employed under Nokia who waged the campaign. How true is it? Sounds more like a corporate conspiracy than a fight for principle.

CopyrightTroll 16y ago
Exactly. I think it's funny that these kids think Apple would care about some GPL principle, when it never mattered.
martythemaniak 16y ago
What a bunch of ugly, hateful people. VLC developers devote thousands of hours of their own free time so users can have a FREE kick-ass piece of software, and what they get in return is being called "freetard", "prick" and "asshole", just because Apple refuses to honour their license. I thought my opinion of Apple fanboys was pretty low already, but it seems it's got much further down to go.

jarin 16y ago

I hate to say it, but this is why I have a big problem with the GPL. Not for infrastructure software like operating systems, web servers, and databases (where I think it is appropriate and beneficial), but for code intended for use in end-user applications (including web applications). I think licenses like BSD, MIT, and Apache spur more innovation in those cases. You can make the argument that companies have no incentive to contribute back to open source projects without copyleft licenses, but projects like Webkit and Rails have proven otherwise.

dman 16y ago
Can you be more specific about the problem ?
- jarin 16y ago
  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." http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-store/ 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.
  - wvenable 16y ago
    > 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.
  - 16y ago

oslic 16y ago

So is this what GPL developers consider a "win?" The GPL seems designed to create something for developers to fuss about. The net effect is pretty stupid compared to BSD/MIT/Apache. It's been long ago proved that the community deals fairly with contributions of any kind. The only difference then with GPL is that it locks out many legitimate uses (businesses) that might have otherwise been available. That's not "free," that's "restrictive," no matter how many times Stallman bangs his drum.

voxcogitatio 16y ago
No this is what a GPL developer considers a "loss". Specifically, yet another demonstration of why developing for someone else's walled garden is a bad idea.

st3fan 16y ago

Looks like Rémi Denis-Courmont pulled his blog and his resume. What is going on there? His posting is aggregated on planet vlc, but it does not link to the original.

w1ntermute 16y ago
Managed to pull it through the Google Cache into Google Docs, from which I was able to obtain the original PDF: http://ompldr.org/vNndvaA/CV.pdf http://ompldr.org/vNndvaA/CV.pdf http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3232537/docs/CV.pdf http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3232537/docs/CV.pdf What I'm guessing is of interest: Email: remi@remlab.net Ph. #: (+358) 50 487 6315

mikecane 16y ago

Putting aside all the issues involved here, what I don't understand to begin with is why any other iOS dev has not done an app that can play back the kind of AVI files most people have in their collections to begin with. Is it that hard? Or did devs shy away from it because they never expected Apple to approve such an app? Now that Apple has, will someone else come in with something else? This is a capability that's truly needed. There's just no way I'm going to ever convert my AVIs to MP4s. It'd be faster and cheaper just to get an Archos Android tablet to play those videos. (Note I mention Archos specifically because for years they've developed that capability and have ported that native software to now run under Android.)

sdizdar 16y ago

I would like to understand something here. As far as I was explained by experts (I'm not a lawyer) GPL license does not allow to publish software on closed / proprietary platforms controlled by ToS similar to Apple AppStore. My understanding it is not that VLC on iOS is breaking AppStore ToS but GPL license which is very restrictive when you release something based on it but it is not open sourced. Am I wrong here?

kevinchen 16y ago

So Rémi Denis-Courmont is basically putting his open software principles ahead of the utility users would get on their iPhones. Very noble indeed...

zmmmmm 16y ago
One might equally say that Apple is putting their App Store principles and desire to control their products ahead of the utility of their users. Very noble indeed ...
- halostatue 16y ago
  Apple isn't trying to claim a moral high ground here.

adaml_623 16y ago

I don't have an iPhone because of this walled garden approach to software on it. I'm glad that this has happened as maybe there will be fewer walled garden type situations in the future. It is a pity for users who miss out on VLC but they've made a choice by buying a product that's locked to a single marketplace for apps and they have to live with that.

ryan-allen 16y ago

This is very disappointing. VLC is a great product and so are the iPhone and iPad devices. Not having to convert video and being able to play them on the devices was very welcome! It's such a shame... This to me has a similar kind of feel to patent trolling.

jbk 16y ago
We'll work to get it back there...