Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Software Cellphones Handhelds IOS Music

VLC For iOS Returns On July 19, Rewritten and Fully Open-Sourced 203

Posted by timothy
from the media-player-beats-media-platform dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

VLC For iOS Returns On July 19, Rewritten and Fully Open-Sourced

Comments Filter:
  • Bi-Licensed? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Luthair (847766) on Thursday July 18, 2013 @05:15PM (#44321897)
    It's dual licensed you insensitive clod!
  • by MobyDisk (75490) on Thursday July 18, 2013 @05:43PM (#44322157) Homepage

    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:3 2 1 Takedown (Score:5, Informative)

    by jedidiah (1196) on Thursday July 18, 2013 @05:44PM (#44322169) Homepage

    > 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.

  • by Savage-Rabbit (308260) on Thursday July 18, 2013 @05:52PM (#44322227)

    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:3 2 1 Takedown (Score:5, Informative)

    by kthreadd (1558445) on Thursday July 18, 2013 @06:21PM (#44322489)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 18, 2013 @06:46PM (#44322741)

    The whole idea of open-source is that once the code is 'open', it is out there for anyone to use FOREVER so long as the license is respected. Frankly, you need an IQ of around 5 to understand this concept, which is why you clearly don't.

    Public Domain means "no longer controlled by copyright". Open-source means "released under a permissive license that allows re-use and redistribution by anyone that follows the license".

    A license is a contract, and CANNOT in law simply be retroactively adjusted by one party in any way that effects the other party. Open-source makes EVERYONE the other party if they agree to the license.

    If you were not such a clueless (and big mouthed) cretin, SuperKendall (and I hope to god no-one employs you in any capacity in the IT business), you would have noticed how the world's biggest and least pleasant IT companies have had to sit back and watch as open-source properties they have acquired are forked by others, without ANYTHING they can do to prevent this. Where, you cretin, do you think Libre-Office came from?

    This situation is actually the exactly reverse of what you dribble. The 'owners' of the copyright of open-source projects have the trickiest of legal situations if they desire to create a 'closed-source' fork in the future. Why? Because they have to show either:
    1) the closed source fork consists ONLY of code they OWN, and that they have compensated anyone who previously did free quality control of this code when it was open-source (for instance, people who reported bugs).
    2) the closed source fork consists ONLY of code that ALL the contributors have agreed may be part of a closed-source fork

    Given the above, most closed-source forks are clearly illegal (lack of compensation), but few people bother to take action against the original copyright holders - tolerating this abuse for the benefits open-source releases bring in the first place.

  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Thursday July 18, 2013 @07:00PM (#44322879)

    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:3 2 1 Takedown (Score:5, Informative)

    by rsborg (111459) on Thursday July 18, 2013 @07:03PM (#44322905) Homepage

    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]

The only thing cheaper than hardware is talk.

Working...