5 ms·

But on the other hand, VLC was packaged for the iphone at one point to let users of that platform use it. Source was made available to everyone. It was decide

But on the other hand, VLC was packaged for the iphone at one point to let users of that platform use it. Source was made available to everyone. It was decided that GPL version 3 wouldn't allow GPL software on the iphone so users were not free to use GPL software on their platform. It is available now for iphone so I'm not sure what changed. I thought it was very odd that GPL advocates wanted to limit user freedom in that case.

JupiterMoon 11y ago
That is a very specific case. But since you bring up the iphone. You know that the iphone is fundamentally based open permissive licensed software? I can't think of a more user freedom hostile platform than the iphone...
davexunit 11y ago
>I thought it was very odd that GPL advocates wanted to limit user freedom in that case. You have it backwards. Apple limits user freedom with their licensing restrictions on iOS. Copyleft isn't welcome on iOS, and we shouldn't blame free software advocates for that.
- pbreit 11y ago
  I don't think the advocates should fully exonerated either. The problem is clear so it's just a difference of opinion.
dublinben 11y ago
The problem there is not the GPL, it is the restrictive Terms of Service that Apple has created for their App Store. In order to publish on their closed platform, you must use DRM, which is in violation of the GPL. Apple has it within their power to change their ToS to be compliant with the GPL, and allow more Free Software in the App Store. For obvious reasons, they do not.
bruo 11y ago
I think GPL is forbidden from the AppStore. That's Apple's rules to enforcing it. And yet, the whole iOS environment uses several permissive licensed software. This is a very good example how they damage user freedom, thank you.
- DanBC 11y ago
  It's a bit more subtle than that: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store...
  - jbk 11y ago
    This analysis is very outdated.
    - daveloyall 11y ago
      #fsf on freenode might want to know that and/or receive a patch. I'm sure you're busy, but it sounds like you're a subject matter expert on this topic!
      - jbk 11y ago
        I already gave them the patch in form of a conference at FOSDEM.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      It would have been useful for you to say which bots are wrong, and why. Here's a more recent release, still urging people to avoid Apple. https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/watch-your-freedom-because-apples-not https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/watch-your-freedom-becau...
      - jbk 11y ago
        I already said so, in comments above and various talks quite easy to find.
jbk 11y ago
Seriously, most of your facts are wrong. Source: I'm the president of VideoLAN, I did the VLC relicensing[1], and spent a lot of time on GPL/stores compatibility [2]. VLC was GPLv2+ and so was libVLC (the engine library that was spawned from VLC). VLC was put on iOS store as a GPLv2 app, which was not compatible with Apple ToS, and was therefore removed by Apple. At the same time, libVLC was relicensed over 2 years to LGPLv2.1+ for reasons that were non related to appstores. As a side-effect, VLC for iOS was rewritten and licensed as MPLv2 to be on the AppStore, with a slight bit less features. For your information, the main reason that the AppStore is not GPL compatible, is because the AppStore DOES NOT allow you to use an application as you want (even non-open-source ones). This is forbidden by the GPL. Which shows exactly that the GPL tries to enforce the users freedom. [1] http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2012/I-did-it http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2012/I-did-it [2] https://archive.fosdem.org/2015/schedule/event/appstores/ https://archive.fosdem.org/2015/schedule/event/appstores/
- minot 11y ago
  Thank you for your work. I have a question about copyright assignment. You wrote: >Unlike a lot of large open source projects, authors of VLC keep all their rights on their code, even if the code is minimal. http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2012/How-to-properly-relicense-a-large-open-source-project http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2012/How-to-properly-relice... For an entirely new project, would you rather require all contributors to assign copyright to a single entity which then manages licensing or would you have individuals retain copyright? (Off topic: is this even possible in France?)
  - jbk 11y ago
    > For an entirely new project, would you rather require all contributors to assign copyright to a single entity which then manages licensing or would you have individuals retain copyright? (Off topic: is this even possible in France?) First, there are more than 2 options. I'd say there are 3. Copyright assignment is ALWAYS the wrong answer. It's a bad idea, and I would even that this is unethical, and illegal in numerous countries. If you want more control, notably for a potential future license change, do a Copyright agreement that is not an assignment. Explain clearly what is in the agreement and what is not. Total individual copyright is a great idea, but if you care about an application that will go on an appstore, don't go this route. If you integrate a lot of library, same. But if you do a new cool software, just for fun, yes, keep it like this.
tedks 11y ago
What changed was that VLC relicensed to LGPL, I believe, for this very reason. (Edit: This is incorrect, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9924529 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9924529 ) However, there is a distortion in your post that is very, very critical for this argument. Like all software licenses, the GPL controls DISTRIBUTION of the software. This is a legal concept, not a technical one. Downloading software to your computer and copying it to your iPhone isn't distribution, because you own both devices. The GPL, as a copyleft license, specifies that a distributor may not make any additional restrictions on future distributors (like users). This is so I can't redistribute Linux as proprietary software, for example. However, Apple had, at the time of the VLC removal (and likely has similar wording today), this clause in the App store ToS: >You acknowledge that Products contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following applicable Usage Rules, and, whether or not Products are limited by security technology, you agree to use Products in compliance with the applicable Usage Rules. And, in the Usage Rules: >The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, IN ADDITION (emphasis added) to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party. TL/DR? Apple places ADDITIONAL restrictions on software distributed through the app store. This violates the GPL. You have this backwards in your post. You say that the GPLv3 prohibits use on the iPhone, but in fact, the Apple ToS prohibits DISTRIBUTION of GPL'd software through the App Store. End-users are perfectly free to install VLC on their devices. They aren't breaking any laws by doing so. The GPL expressly allows using the software for any purpose. They could install it on a DRM'd toaster if they wanted to. However, DRMOaster Inc. can't distribute GPL'd software. Instead of modifying its ToS to be more user-friendly, Apple decided to pull VLC from the app store. It could have gone differently. (quotes pulled from https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store...)
- jbk 11y ago
  > What changed was that VLC relicensed to LGPL, I believe, for this very reason. This is incorrect. We changed for other reasons, notably competition and corporate acceptance of the libVLC engine. That relicensing was started way before the port to the AppStore.
pornel 11y ago
> GPL advocates wanted to limit user freedom in that case. That's disingenuous. GPL advocates don't want to limit users' freedom. GPL's Freedom 0 is allowing users to run code for any purpose. The problem is that users don't decide what they can run on iPhones. Apple does, and Apple chose to forbid GPL code in the App Store. --- I've licensed my code under GPL (and sent takedown requests to App Store multiple times) specifically to avoid supporting Apple's user-hostile policies with my gratis work. App Store users have to give up their software freedom for privilege of using Apple's locked-down system. When my code helps increase number of App Store users, it helps increasing number of users who don't have software freedom. If I license my app under a DRM-friendly license, then it gives competitive advantage to those who don't want to give users' freedom. Instead I license my apps under a DRM-incompatible license, so they give competitive advantage to those who respect users' freedom.
- stephenr 11y ago
  The right to choose a "locked down" platform like iOS is inherently a user right. If you don't want your software to be used on that platform that's your choice, but pretending its about "user rights" is ridiculous.

JupiterMoon 11y ago

That is a very specific case. But since you bring up the iphone. You know that the iphone is fundamentally based open permissive licensed software? I can't think of a more user freedom hostile platform than the iphone...

davexunit 11y ago

>I thought it was very odd that GPL advocates wanted to limit user freedom in that case. You have it backwards. Apple limits user freedom with their licensing restrictions on iOS. Copyleft isn't welcome on iOS, and we shouldn't blame free software advocates for that.

pbreit 11y ago
I don't think the advocates should fully exonerated either. The problem is clear so it's just a difference of opinion.

dublinben 11y ago

The problem there is not the GPL, it is the restrictive Terms of Service that Apple has created for their App Store. In order to publish on their closed platform, you must use DRM, which is in violation of the GPL. Apple has it within their power to change their ToS to be compliant with the GPL, and allow more Free Software in the App Store. For obvious reasons, they do not.

bruo 11y ago

I think GPL is forbidden from the AppStore. That's Apple's rules to enforcing it. And yet, the whole iOS environment uses several permissive licensed software. This is a very good example how they damage user freedom, thank you.

DanBC 11y ago
It's a bit more subtle than that: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store...
- jbk 11y ago
  This analysis is very outdated.
  - daveloyall 11y ago
    #fsf on freenode might want to know that and/or receive a patch. I'm sure you're busy, but it sounds like you're a subject matter expert on this topic!
    - jbk 11y ago
      I already gave them the patch in form of a conference at FOSDEM.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    It would have been useful for you to say which bots are wrong, and why. Here's a more recent release, still urging people to avoid Apple. https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/watch-your-freedom-because-apples-not https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/watch-your-freedom-becau...
    - jbk 11y ago
      I already said so, in comments above and various talks quite easy to find.

jbk 11y ago

Seriously, most of your facts are wrong. Source: I'm the president of VideoLAN, I did the VLC relicensing[1], and spent a lot of time on GPL/stores compatibility [2]. VLC was GPLv2+ and so was libVLC (the engine library that was spawned from VLC). VLC was put on iOS store as a GPLv2 app, which was not compatible with Apple ToS, and was therefore removed by Apple. At the same time, libVLC was relicensed over 2 years to LGPLv2.1+ for reasons that were non related to appstores. As a side-effect, VLC for iOS was rewritten and licensed as MPLv2 to be on the AppStore, with a slight bit less features. For your information, the main reason that the AppStore is not GPL compatible, is because the AppStore DOES NOT allow you to use an application as you want (even non-open-source ones). This is forbidden by the GPL. Which shows exactly that the GPL tries to enforce the users freedom. [1] http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2012/I-did-it http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2012/I-did-it [2] https://archive.fosdem.org/2015/schedule/event/appstores/ https://archive.fosdem.org/2015/schedule/event/appstores/

minot 11y ago
Thank you for your work. I have a question about copyright assignment. You wrote: >Unlike a lot of large open source projects, authors of VLC keep all their rights on their code, even if the code is minimal. http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2012/How-to-properly-relicense-a-large-open-source-project http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2012/How-to-properly-relice... For an entirely new project, would you rather require all contributors to assign copyright to a single entity which then manages licensing or would you have individuals retain copyright? (Off topic: is this even possible in France?)
- jbk 11y ago
  > For an entirely new project, would you rather require all contributors to assign copyright to a single entity which then manages licensing or would you have individuals retain copyright? (Off topic: is this even possible in France?) First, there are more than 2 options. I'd say there are 3. Copyright assignment is ALWAYS the wrong answer. It's a bad idea, and I would even that this is unethical, and illegal in numerous countries. If you want more control, notably for a potential future license change, do a Copyright agreement that is not an assignment. Explain clearly what is in the agreement and what is not. Total individual copyright is a great idea, but if you care about an application that will go on an appstore, don't go this route. If you integrate a lot of library, same. But if you do a new cool software, just for fun, yes, keep it like this.

tedks 11y ago

What changed was that VLC relicensed to LGPL, I believe, for this very reason. (Edit: This is incorrect, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9924529 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9924529 ) However, there is a distortion in your post that is very, very critical for this argument. Like all software licenses, the GPL controls DISTRIBUTION of the software. This is a legal concept, not a technical one. Downloading software to your computer and copying it to your iPhone isn't distribution, because you own both devices. The GPL, as a copyleft license, specifies that a distributor may not make any additional restrictions on future distributors (like users). This is so I can't redistribute Linux as proprietary software, for example. However, Apple had, at the time of the VLC removal (and likely has similar wording today), this clause in the App store ToS: >You acknowledge that Products contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following applicable Usage Rules, and, whether or not Products are limited by security technology, you agree to use Products in compliance with the applicable Usage Rules. And, in the Usage Rules: >The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, IN ADDITION (emphasis added) to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party. TL/DR? Apple places ADDITIONAL restrictions on software distributed through the app store. This violates the GPL. You have this backwards in your post. You say that the GPLv3 prohibits use on the iPhone, but in fact, the Apple ToS prohibits DISTRIBUTION of GPL'd software through the App Store. End-users are perfectly free to install VLC on their devices. They aren't breaking any laws by doing so. The GPL expressly allows using the software for any purpose. They could install it on a DRM'd toaster if they wanted to. However, DRMOaster Inc. can't distribute GPL'd software. Instead of modifying its ToS to be more user-friendly, Apple decided to pull VLC from the app store. It could have gone differently. (quotes pulled from https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store...)

jbk 11y ago
> What changed was that VLC relicensed to LGPL, I believe, for this very reason. This is incorrect. We changed for other reasons, notably competition and corporate acceptance of the libVLC engine. That relicensing was started way before the port to the AppStore.

pornel 11y ago

> GPL advocates wanted to limit user freedom in that case. That's disingenuous. GPL advocates don't want to limit users' freedom. GPL's Freedom 0 is allowing users to run code for any purpose. The problem is that users don't decide what they can run on iPhones. Apple does, and Apple chose to forbid GPL code in the App Store. --- I've licensed my code under GPL (and sent takedown requests to App Store multiple times) specifically to avoid supporting Apple's user-hostile policies with my gratis work. App Store users have to give up their software freedom for privilege of using Apple's locked-down system. When my code helps increase number of App Store users, it helps increasing number of users who don't have software freedom. If I license my app under a DRM-friendly license, then it gives competitive advantage to those who don't want to give users' freedom. Instead I license my apps under a DRM-incompatible license, so they give competitive advantage to those who respect users' freedom.

stephenr 11y ago
The right to choose a "locked down" platform like iOS is inherently a user right. If you don't want your software to be used on that platform that's your choice, but pretending its about "user rights" is ridiculous.