VLC For iOS Returns On July 19, Rewritten and Fully Open-Sourced 203
An anonymous reader writes "VideoLAN revealed some very exciting news today: VLC for iOS will be back in Apple's App Store by tomorrow (July 19). The company tells TNW the app will be available for free worldwide, requires iOS 5.1 or later, as well supports the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch. As you can expect, VLC for iOS version 2.0 will be open-source. This time, however, its code will be available online (also by tomorrow), bi-licensed under both the Mozilla Public License Version 2 as well as the GNU General Public License Version 2 or later."
3 2 1 Takedown (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't understand how they think this will work. LibVLC is LGPL, and unless they got consent from _every_ VLC contributor or the terms and conditions changed dramatically the last couple of months they can't distribute it on the iOS App Store. Sorry, but you picked the wrong license if that was something you wanted to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the VLC devs requested to have it removed because of licensing.
Re:3 2 1 Takedown (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the VLC devs requested to have it removed because of licensing after said developer was hired by Nokia.
Note that same developer has not complained over VLC being distributed for Nokia phones under similar conditions with Apple's AppStore.
Re: (Score:2)
It was one of the VLC developers that complained about how the GPL and iOS TOS were incompatible and ordered it to be taken down.
Basically, sour grapes.
Re:3 2 1 Takedown (Score:4, Insightful)
Either that, or Apple could stop abusing its users.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not Apple doing the abusing. It's the GPL that is incompatible with the App Store. There's no Apple rule that stops GPL software appearing on the App Store.
The only reason users of the iPhone haven't had VLC for all this time is the GPL and the decision by it's developers to remove it. It's not as a result of anything Apple has done.
It's good to see an outbreak of common sense, and the use of a non-GPL license this time round.
Re:3 2 1 Takedown (Score:5, Informative)
> It's not Apple doing the abusing. It's the GPL that is incompatible with the App Store.
The GPL predates the App Store by about 20 years. If Apple decided to create terms for it's store that are incompatible with a 20 year old license then that is on Apple.
It's their decision to be jackasses.
The rest of us should not bow and scrape and grovel just because Apple has decided it can abuse the rest of us at will.
Re: (Score:2)
App developers deserve to distribute their software under their own terms. Apple limits this and the way users are allowed to use the software. This breaks the fundamental principles of free software, which says that you the user should not be dominated by someone else in order to do your computing. Apple does not allow developers to distribute their software under fair conditions.
Re:3 2 1 Takedown (Score:4, Interesting)
App developers deserve to distribute their software under their own terms. . Apple limits this and the way users are allowed to use the software. This breaks the fundamental principles of free software, which says that you the user should not be dominated by someone else in order to do your computing.
Yes they do but where does it developers have a right to use Apple's store to distribute their software as they wish. Nowhere. You want to write an app and post your source code for the world to see, that's your choice. If you want to use someone's distribution channel you have to abide by their rules.
Apple does not allow developers to distribute their software under fair conditions.
Apple does not allow developers to distribute software under your conditions. What you consider fair is not what everyone considers fair. Some developers do not want anyone to see their source code under any circumstances.
Re:3 2 1 Takedown (Score:4, Interesting)
What you consider fair is not what everyone considers fair. Some developers do not want anyone to see their source code under any circumstances.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive as you frame them. In fact, every other platform manages to accommodate both.
Yes they do but where does it developers have a right to use Apple's store to distribute their software as they wish. Nowhere.
Perfectly true. And the developers of GPL software have every right to have their work removed from Apple's store and encourage others to do the same. Somehow I think no GPL software in the ios ecosystem would be more harmful to the ios usebase than it would be to writers of GPL software.
Re: (Score:2)
It actually isn't even the app store's fault - the blame rests on the marketing/development/sales folks who had the engineers who designed the OS software lock it down to only getting applications from one particular source. It is part of their operating model - they aren't just selling a physical device, or some bits on a disk, they are selling an end user experience. And in order to make that happen the way they envision it, they have to maintain as much control as possible.
Re: (Score:3)
"Yes they do but where does it developers have a right to use Apple's store to distribute their software as they wish. Nowhere."
Flip that around from the users perspective and ask why the user when they buy an iPhone doesn't have the right to run the software they want to run and only the software Apple lets them run from the only official app source.
Who gives a fuck what Apple thinks, if Apple has only given that single official avenue to end users to install apps then users should be able to install the a
Re: (Score:2)
Flip that around from the users perspective and ask why the user when they buy an iPhone doesn't have the right to run the software they want to run and only the software Apple lets them run from the only official app source.
Then they can buy Android. It's not like Apple has made it a secret that they have a walled garden. Developers don't have a write to dictate to their terms to Apple or Google or whoever.
Who gives a fuck what Apple thinks, if Apple has only given that single official avenue to end users to install apps then users should be able to install the apps they want from it, or Apple should enable side-loading. It's not a question of Apple's rights, it's a question of users right to be able to use the device they've bought with the software they want to use.
Users don't have to buy Apple at all. Is it that hard to grasp? I don't like the server choices that MS or Apple offers; I run a Linux server at home.
What are you on about? Allowing GPL code on the app store wouldn't force every other app to suddenly become GPL...
Are you following this topic at all? Apple allowed GPL code on their store. One of the copyright holders objected to his code being on the store that someone else had por
Re: (Score:2)
Those two things are not mutually exclusive as you frame them. In fact, every other platform manages to accommodate both.
See above: "You want to write an app and post your source code for the world to see, that's your choice."
And the developers of GPL software have every right to have their work removed from Apple's store and encourage others to do the same.
Which Applied complied with. Suddenly they are anti-GPL because they complied with a copyright holder's wishes. Instead others would have rather Apple change their policies that were well known.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not.
Er yes it is. It is entirely Apple's fault. They were fully aware of the GPL and decided to make terms incompatible with is. They have no oblication not to do this, but it doesn't make it their fault and does not absolve them of responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Er yes it is. It is entirely Apple's fault. They were fully aware of the GPL and decided to make terms incompatible with is. They have no obligation not to do this, but it doesn't make it their fault and does not absolve them of responsibility.
Complete nonsense. Commercial software distributed as binaries predated the GPL. It was the GPL that was set up to try and disrupt that. It's author's intent was to stop distribution of simple binary software. That attempt is failing.
Apple created a commercial software store, that just as has been done since times long before the GPL, distributed software binaries. For money and for free.
It's completely agnostic to open source and the GPL. There's nothing to stop a developer distributing source for their ap
Re: (Score:2)
You can distribute GPL or other open-souce software on the App Store, because it's easy to also distribute source somewhere else.
As a copyright holder you can only request that the app is removed if distributing it violates the license under which you contributed.
False, as the copyright holder you can stop someone from distributing your copyrighted work for any reason. That's the reason GPL even works, because it is based on copyright. They had every right to stop VLC from being distributed on iOS - it's
Re: (Score:2)
You can't take it back once you have given someone code licensed under GPL. They are entitled to distributing it. You can't go to for example Debian and say that they are no longer allowed to distribute your GPL software. You can only say that if they violated the terms in the license.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't take it back once you have given someone code licensed under GPL. They are entitled to distributing it.
That is not true. As the copyright holder you in the end have full control over what anyone can do with the source. The GPL is just a promise of what you will NOT do - even though you could.
Otherwise the code would be public domain, which is exactly the opposite of what the GPL does. The GPL leaves all copyrights firmly in the hands of the original owner.
Re: (Score:2)
nope all previously licensed copies and their derivatives retain their license your changes do not apply retro actively only to new copies that you ditribute.
You are ignoring what I said (Score:4, Informative)
Why are you so ashamed of your thinking that you post AC? You actually had a pretty good post there.
Your understanding of the GPL is roughly correct. Your understanding of what I said is utterly wrong.
Yes the GPL is a contract, but like any contract the actual enforcement is up to the courts. It does not mean the original copyright holder cannot sue someone for using source code that was distributed under the GPL, or make complaints to others that as the copyright holder (for instance) they wish to have something removed from the app store. That's exactly what happened. Apple complied because the person who complained was the copyright holder - end of story.
As you say actual compliance with the GPL is spotty but it doesn't matter as long as no-one takes action. The VLC app would have stayed on the app store until the end of time if one of the copyright holders did not complain.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you release code as GPL, you can't go back and tell people not to redistribute it.
Yes, you can, you are the copyright holder.
They can argue that because of the GPL, they do not have to. But that does not mean the original copyright holder has no leg to stand on.
Everyone that got a copy has no legal obligations to you other than those in the GPL
The GPL means nothing without copyright under it, therefore copyright is still with the original owner.
The reason why VLC is not in the app store is because th
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL means nothing without copyright under it, therefore copyright is still with the original owner.
we know that's false because there are many GPL based apps in the App Store today
I wrote softwareX- I hold the copyright. I am free to license softwareX to Fred under the GPL. I am also free to license softwareX to Greg under a license I make up on the fly. Fred still has a GPL license to softwareX.
If the owners of the copyrights to GPL softwareY want to allow their software on Apple's AppStore even if it doesn't fully comply with the GPL license they are free to do so. That does not mean that the Apple AppStore complies with the GPL. As we see here, if a copyright holder does no
Installation Information (Score:2)
You can distribute GPL or other open-souce software on the App Store, because it's easy to also distribute source somewhere else.
I thought the iOS developer terms prohibited developers from disclosing "Installation Information" (GPLv3 term) or "scripts used to control [...] installation of the executable" (GPLv2 term) to more than a few dozen people at once.
Re: (Score:3)
Incorrect. You don't "take ownership" of somebody else's work by default. Copyright rules, legally. Each party owns his own work by copyright. What you have, IF the other guy's work is not GPL, is a case for that guy violating the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not a problem to the people that wrote the GPL. If you want to make use of the hard work of others then you have to pay them their due. They demand the price of having your software also benefiting others.
If what you are linking is so trivial that you don't think it should be able to control the licensing of your software don't use it. Write it yourself like everyone else has to.
Gratuitous license are revocable (Score:2)
> As a copyright holder you can only request that the app is removed if distributing it violates the license under which you contributed.
Or if you contributed it under a gratuitous license rather than a contracted-for license, since gratuitous licenses are revocable at will.
Re: (Score:2)
Under which country's law?
In most places, I'd expect promissory estoppel to apply.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple wasn't the "distributor" in this case, their AppStore was just being used as a Distribution Channel by the VLC Team. So VLC violated GPL by choosing an incompatible Distribution Channel, Apple had nothing to do with it. Stop spreading obvious lies.
That's not correct. When an end user installs an app via the App Store, software written by, deployed by, and under the control of Apple makes a copy and distributes that copy to the end user. Apple needs the permission of the copyright owner in order to do these things. 17 USC 106.
Apple is relying on the assurance of the developer of the app that he is either the copyright holder, or has the permission of the copyright owner to grant Apple permission to do those things. If the developer did not have permis
Re: (Score:3)
That permission is granted on submission by the Developer.
Only the copyright holder, or someone authorized by the copyright holder, can grant that permission. If someone else tries to do so, the grant is not effective.
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple want to be just a distribution channel, and not a distributor, then they need to stop imposing additional licensing terms on the software being distributed through them. By adding their own terms, they are involving themselves in the distribution process.
Re: (Score:2)
They charge money for licenses, manage relicensing, and handle accessories sales. They are so far over the line in being a distributor it isn't remotely questionable.
Re: (Score:3)
It's unhealthy if your goal is to dominate your users. It prioritizes computing freedom.
Yes it complicates distribution. But if the developers didn't wanted to sign up for that free software thing they should have picked a different licensed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:3 2 1 Takedown (Score:5, Informative)
What are you smoking? A developer ported VLC to iOS. Apple accepted the application. Later one of the original developers of the VLC objected to Apple distributing his code due to licensing concerns. So Apple removed the app. Your position is that Apple should know everything about every single application that is submitted to it? That's as asinine as saying craigslist should know that every item sold using their website is legal and not stolen.
The original developer objected because it violated the licensed he originally developed VLC under. That simple. You are not allowed to take VLC and do whatever you want with it. You should respect software freedom. If you don't, you don't get to distribute VLC. That's why he could request that the app was pulled, because it did not conform with the license he used.
Re: (Score:2)
The original developer objected because it violated the licensed he originally developed VLC under. That simple. You are not allowed to take VLC and do whatever you want with it. You should respect software freedom. If you don't, you don't get to distribute VLC. That's why he could request that the app was pulled, because it did not conform with the license he used.
Then the person who developed the iOS app should be pilloried and burned alive in the town square. And how is this the fault of Apple again? T
Re: (Score:2)
And how is this the fault of Apple again? They got a takedown notice; they complied. Oh, right, because it's Apple.
It's not Apple's fault that it was pulled, but it's partly Apple's fault that it could be pulled. Which is OK, they don't have to allow everything and is fully within their right to impose restrictions on distribution. Just be aware that this is why the GPL was developed, and why software licensed under it will have problems with it.
Re: (Score:2)
What you said that made sense needed just a few words: The licence was violated - plain and simple. VLC should no more have been submitted any more than GPLed code should be compiled in to Adobe Photoshop. Software freedom? Bullshit, take that trope and keep it in mind when you're outside Wallmart singing The Red Flag.
Thus isn't about software freedom; it's about licensing. In this context the only thing that should be respected is the licence. If its software freedom, plenty would argue that more permissiv
Re: (Score:2)
It's not Apple's fault that it was pulled, but it's partly Apple's fault that it could be pulled. Which is OK, they don't have to allow everything and is fully within their right to impose restrictions on distribution. Just be aware that this is why the GPL was developed, and why software licensed under it will have problems with it.
Apple probably doesn't give a rat's ass whether or not it got pulled. They were trying to comply with a copyright holder's wishes.
Re: (Score:2)
What about my freedom to let do what I like and not what the author of some header file or object I linked too?!
You are perfectly free to not use that header file and write your own software. Or do the developer's rights not matter to you if it gets in the way of you making money off their work?
GPL is a plague and why the BSD license is supperior especially for tax payer funded software where corps can not play. If I develop some software that costs money to develop I need to charge for it or I go out of business.
Wait, is it public funded or are you making it to sell it? Because if it's tax-payer funded you are getting paid to write it.
Re: (Score:2)
You should read the clauses of the gpl? Any linking is part of a deritive work and not allowed. This is why Sun couldnt gpl java for IceTea as it would be useless in a commercial setting.
A special classpath exception was added. Lgpl lets people link freely and the stuff spewed on slashdot is incorrect. If you release gpl apis do not be surprised if people cant use it and replace yours lile what VLC had to do.
Yes corps pay taxes too and they have the right to use it as much as you. GPL is am ideology that is
Re: (Score:2)
What about my freedom to charge users?
Firstly the GPL doesn't prevent that.
Secondly you seem to want to use some random developer's code for your own purposes without paying him. You sound nothing like a piece of whiny, leeching scum. You're always complaining that GPL code authors aren't giving you free stuff.
If you don't like the GPL then just pretend that nothing based on the GPL exists. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
And Apple took it down because he was right.
So Apple's the bad guy for actually respecting the original developer's rights?
$1,045 (Score:2)
If you have a problem with the lack of OpenSource Apps for iOS, blame the Developers
Making use of the open-source aspect of such apps costs $1,045: $649 for a Mac mini on which to run Xcode and $99 for each of four years of the expected service life of the iPod touch, iPhone, or iPad. I blame only Apple's business decisions for this price.
Users have a CHOICE to not use Apple products
What you say appears not to be true of a high school student who received an iPod touch, iPhone, or iPad as a gift and is prohibited by law from working.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm at a loss as to why you include the cost of the Mac mini. Do other computer brands come for free?
Can you develop for Linux (open source or otherwise) without paying for a computer?
Having to first replace your PC (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is the distributor for the app store. Distributors have rather substantial obligations under the GPL.
Re: (Score:3)
Basically, sour grapes.
Yeah, some people just get all uppity about what you do with the things they created :(
Re: (Score:2)
Re:3 2 1 Takedown (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, lets be clear about this apparently...
The Dev in question happens to work for a competing phone manufacturer
The developer's name is Rémi Denis-Courmont [1], and while he's the lead developer for the VLC app, also worked for Nokia at the time, and thus the conflict of interest in his revocation of VLC iOS app.
[1] http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-store/ [tuaw.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Because you know, that's totally the spirit of open source.
This is the difference between open source and free software. VLC is free software. It has nothing to do with open source.
Then why is DFSG identical to OSD? (Score:2)
VLC is free software. It has nothing to do with open source.
The free software and open source movements arise from different premises, but they end up at the same conclusion. The Debian Free Software Guidelines and the OSI Open Source Definition are worded nearly identically.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be a clown, you anonymous shill, and especially don't be an ignorant blowhard. The terms of the App Store were in violation of the program's license, not the copyright, except insofar as the copyright is what puts the teeth in enforcing the license terms. It had nothing to do with benefiting a large company. On the contrary, many lar
Installation Information (Score:2)
In my opinion, having the source available on the homepage of the app is good enough.
GPLv3 requires the source code to include what it calls "Installation Information". (GPLv2 has a similar provision about scripts used to control installation.) Apple doesn't let a single developer distribute Installation Information to more than 99 members of the public.
Re: (Score:2)
This is probably where the "rewritten" part comes in. I would assume they either got consent or rewrote the parts that they didn't have consent for.
Re: (Score:3)
The UI layer is MPL, but the actual guts of the app is libVLC which is not rewritten and licensed under LGPL. So, unless they rewrote that and I missed it I don't see how they can be in the clear.
Re: (Score:3)
The UI layer is MPL, but the actual guts of the app is libVLC which is not rewritten and licensed under LGPL. So, unless they rewrote that and I missed it I don't see how they can be in the clear.
They are in the clear as long as none of the copyright holders complains to Apple and demands that the app is removed. And once one of the copyright holders complains, it doesn't matter whether the app store is compatible with GPL or not, because Apple will remove it when asked to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes the iOS front-end perhaps, but unless they also rewrote the whole decoding backend that they have to link to that part will still be under the LGPL.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they did the sensible thing, and link to the built in video framework for things that it supports. That way they only have to provide for those video formats that are unsupported by Core Video.
how long before HBO asks apple to take it down? (Score:5, Funny)
how long before HBO asks apple to take it down?
Re:how long before HBO asks apple to take it down? (Score:5, Informative)
how long before HBO asks apple to take it down?
The irony is that VLC was pulled from the iTunes store last time not by evil Sith lord apprentices at Apple, not at the behest of a evil DRM purveyor, nor was it pulled due to threats by the RIAA or MPAA, it was removed at the insistence of a VLC developer because he felt that the GNU general public license conflicted with the iTunes App Store license. Apple was apparently not bothered by this until this guy raised a stink about perceived GPL violations, so just this once the evil corporate weasels seem to be blameless. Perhaps this sorry saga also explains the license changes?
Re: (Score:2)
Apple was apparently not bothered by this until this guy raised a stink about perceived GPL violations.
I think another way to look at it that Apple doesn't check on the licensing of any code that is submitted. It assumes that all code submitted falls under a permissible license. When someone objected, they removed the app.
Robo-DMCA false positives (Score:2)
The irony is that VLC was pulled from the iTunes store last time not by evil Sith lord apprentices at Apple, not at the behest of a evil DRM purveyor, nor was it pulled due to threats by the RIAA or MPAA, it was removed at the insistence of a VLC developer
I believe Joe_Dragon was referring to this recent Slashdot story, where a studio sharing a parent company with an MPAA member submitted a mistaken robo-DMCA notice to Google: HBO Asks Google To Take Down "Infringing" VLC Media Player [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
so just this once the evil corporate weasels seem to be blameless.
Not even slightly blameless. The evil coprorate weasles constructed GPL incompatible rules in the first place.
For some reason whenever anyone else points this out you get a storm of protest about how it's their right to be evil corporate weasles. It certainly is their tight, but they're still evil corporate weasles.
Exciting news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, this doesnt seem like exciting news to me at all. Dual-licensing it to get it in the app store is a failure, not a victory. If the app store isnt compatible with GPL software, then the app store shouldnt be getting access to GPL software. Dual-licensing to work around Apples error seems actively counterproductive to me.
The question is not whether the app store is compatible with GPL software. The question is whether a copyright holder asks Apple to remove the software. It's a DMCA notice, and when Apple gets a DMCA notice, they take it down. The strange thing is that on Slashdot a DMCA takedown notice is considered a dick move - unless it is about GPL licensed software taken down from the app store.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear god, how did the world survive before DMCA? Oh wait, copyrights were enforced via due process rather than draconian excess. How will the world survive after DMCA is blown away and sent back to hell where it came from? I'm confident the answer is "very nicely; a lot better than now
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, this doesnt seem like exciting news to me at all. Dual-licensing it to get it in the app store is a failure, not a victory. If the app store isnt compatible with GPL software, then the app store shouldnt be getting access to GPL software. Dual-licensing to work around Apples error seems actively counterproductive to me.
Problem is you've got it backwards. The problem wasn't from the point of view of Apple's license... it was from the GPL end. It was a VLC developer that requested it be removed.
There is lots of GPL licensed software on the iOS App Store - Apple doesn't care at all.
Now if you believe the GPL is incompatible with Apple's licenses AND if you think somehow that is Apple's problem... well, then, Ballmer had a point when he referred to the GPL as a "cancer".
Re: (Score:2)
Apple doesn't care, but anyone who have contributed to them that cares can request that they are pulled since they are distributed against the conditions stipulated in the GPL.
That's not why (Score:2)
anyone who have contributed to them that cares can request that they are pulled since they are distributed against the conditions stipulated in the GPL.
The reason Apple listens is not complaints about the GPL, but because they are partly the copyright holder. Apple doesn't care about the GPL; they do care about copyrighted work being distributed without permission.
Re: (Score:2)
You have permission as long as you follow the terms stipulated in the GPL. But it's true that Apple doesn't have to care about that, they can kick your app out for any other reason if they want to.
Re: (Score:2)
You have permission as long as you follow the terms stipulated in the GPL.
Technically according to the contract, yes you do.
However all Apple sees is an original copyright holder issuing a complaint. It's not Apple's job to interpret a contract, it's Apple's job to take down something if a valid copyright holder asks them to.
Re: (Score:2)
"Technically according to the contract, yes you do."
There is no contract. It's a license, a one-sided grant, not a two-party agreement.
Counter-notification (Score:2)
However all Apple sees is an original copyright holder issuing a complaint.
If the developer who uploaded the app to the App Store believed that the app was properly using the complaining contributor's code under the GNU General Public License, the uploader could have filed a counter-notification. But it turns out that Apple's terms conflict with the Installation Information requirement of the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
They do have to care about that, because they are the ones doing the distributing and imposing the additional restrictions that violate the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
WHAT restrictions?
That's the thing - VLC is/was (L)GPLv2.
The source code to VLC for iOS was always available, which I guess could technically violate the GPL since it's not Apple distributing the code (unless the developer embedded it in the .ipa file...). But that's it, really.
If you say you can't compile the source and use it on the device - well, $99 says you can
Re: (Score:2)
Just one example (as I can't be bothered going and reading through the 80 odd pages of legalese that you have to agree to before you use the app store); the additional restriction that you may only deploy any application that you download from the app store on a maximum of 5 devices.
Re: (Score:2)
"It was a VLC developer that requested it be removed."
Correct. Because it was being distributed in violation of copyright law. Best I can tell, that is still the case.
"There is lots of GPL licensed software on the iOS App Store - Apple doesn't care at all."
Of course they don't, they have never cared about copyright (as long as it's someone elses copyright.) And the availability of GPL software in the App Store is to their advantage - it adds value to their product without costing them anything. I am sure th
Re: (Score:2)
This. This is a loss for FLOSS.
And how is this not still a GPLv2 violation?
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement [fsf.org]
Re: (Score:3)
If it's dual-licensed it's not GPL software, the owners of the copyright can do as they wish. What do GPL advocates say? Oh yeah...if you don't like it, write your own.
"Actively counterproductive" implies that you know what the definition of "productive" is in the authors' minds. Clearly you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
The conflicting portion of the GPL here is not a shortcoming. It is a very intentional and IMO positive part of its design. Sad that they're trying to work around it. As far as I can tell this is still a GPLv2 violation though:
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement [fsf.org]
Shortcoming my behind (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, LGPL libraries can be distributed in commercial software, and only changes to the library itself, if any, need be open sourced under the LGPL. They don't need permission from anyone to distribute it.
The .o files (Score:2)
Re-signing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that the LGPL allows that the GPL doesn't is the whole dynamic linking thing. That is not a relevant distinction here. So whatever Apple is doing that could p*ss off a Free Software developer applies equally to the GPL or LGPL.
The main difference between the two are how derivative works are defined.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not an issue in this case, as it merely means they have to provide the source for the VLC app (which they are). The system dynamically loads the application and does not statically link to it, so the actual iOS system being closed does not matter.
DMCA (Score:2)
Sony will come after them for copyright infringement.
Bi-Licensed? (Score:4, Informative)
GPL incompatible with the app store!?! (Score:5, Informative)
This was news to me, and every news article just vaguely mentions it without providing details. For those unfamiliar, here is an article by the Free Software Foundation explaining the incompatibility. [fsf.org] and here is another article which represents a more nuanced position [tuaw.com].
Re: (Score:2)
You assumed they weren't wildly incompatible!?
Re: (Score:2)
Huh; I had heard about the "incompatibility" but I didn't know exactly what it was. Thanks for the link.
It's ironic that a group of people who often hate copyrights and patents will simultaneously cling to a particularly strict interpretation of a App Store/GPL license interaction. I'm not saying the interpretation is wrong, but it;s unclear enough that neither side would want the court battle needed to settle it.
This definitely sounds like a "cut off the nose to spite the face" situation to me.
Apple store incompatible with free people (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's the thing: for most of us, if the only way to assert our rights involves hiring attorneys for what could easily be a protracted court case, then we have been effectively stripped of our rights.
Apple's contract, on its face, clearly and plainly requires us to agree to onerous conditions which, on their face, render Apple incapable of qualifying for the GPL. Apple has absolutely zero interest in changing that in any way and has made that very clear. That is their right.
Using GPL software to entice people into their "system," however, is not their right. Not morally, and not legally. It's a privilege extended only to those willing to comply with the incredibly reasonable, and extraordinarily specific, terms of the GPL. Given that Apple has made it clear they have no interest or intention whatsoever of allowing their customers the essential freedoms the GPL was built to preserve, why on earth would anyone expect them to be allowed to use the code?
Come on.
support for remote streaming? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't particularly care about the licensing issues.
My question is whether it will allow me to stream from my home system, or will I have to upload every video file or use Dropbox or some other kludge.
Re: (Score:2)
From the linked article:
Re: (Score:2)
Plex is a media server, not a client, right?
He's asking if VLC for iOS will play back DLNA-served media. As another iPhone/iPad owner with a DLNA server that holds all my media, I'd like to know too. Every TV in my house handles media streamed from the Linux box I have in my basement just great... it would be spiffy if I could also watch shows on my tablet so I can sit outside on my deck.
Re: (Score:2)
Not interested in the Plex server, as I already have DLNA server software running (for a couple of years) that works well with everything.
As for the client, I see "Plex" in the App Store... for $4.95. Call me cheap, but I'd prefer a free client. I've contributed enough media playback code to the world to not feel too guilty about it, and I've contributed money to VideoLAN (as I do most "free" software efforts I make use of).
why not android? (Score:2)
to hell with ios. they should make vlc for android and watch it become the most
downloaded app on the play store. i don't think play store will have a problem with
the gpl.