Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 1st Nov 2010 17:10 UTC
Apple Do you like VLC on your iPhone or iPad? You don't yet have it installed, but want to? Well, then you'd better be quick about it, as some VLC contributors are unhappy with the fact that VLC is distributed through Apple's App Store, violating the GPL the video player is licensed under. At least, that's what some think.
Order by: Score:
Perhaps...
by philipsw on Mon 1st Nov 2010 17:37 UTC
philipsw
Member since:
2009-07-27

... the author should dual license with a BSD-style license. The best of both worlds?

Unless of course he's using GPL'd code himself. In which case he probably shouldn't have knowingly published his app to the App Store in the first place.

Edited 2010-11-01 17:44 UTC

Score: 1

RE: Perhaps...
by Valhalla on Mon 1st Nov 2010 17:46 UTC in reply to "Perhaps..."
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

... the author should dual license with a BSD-style license. The best of both worlds?


Well, in this case it's not 'the author', there's a ton of contributors who would have to agree on dual licencing. Obviously GPL and App Store will clash since GPL is all about end user rights and the App Store (and Apple's whole mobile platform) is the exact opposite.

Also, this version of VLC was not submitted to the App Store by VLC devs but by a third party who chose to port and submit it.

Score: 4

RE: Perhaps...
by Neolander on Mon 1st Nov 2010 17:48 UTC in reply to "Perhaps..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

... the author should dual license with a BSD-style license. The best of both worlds?

Unless of course he's using GPL'd code himself. In which case he probably shouldn't have knowingly published his app to the App Store in the first place.

It's not the same guy who published the VLC app and filed the complaint. VLC for iOS is not made by VideoLAN but by a third-party called Applidium, though it's based on VLC's source code.

Edited 2010-11-01 17:52 UTC

Score: 2

RE: Perhaps...
by orestes on Mon 1st Nov 2010 17:52 UTC in reply to "Perhaps..."
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

This is why big projects like OpenOffice require copyright assignment for inclusion into the official tree. The author of VLC *couldn't* dual license it even if he wanted to because he very likely doesn't hold the rights to all the contributions in the tree.

Score: 4

Pull
by vivainio on Mon 1st Nov 2010 17:55 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

The most likely outcome is that Apple will simply pull VLC from the App Store, which is sad for VLC users (VLC is quite popular in the App Store).

Clarification: it's sad for VLC users that want to use it on iPhone, not VLC users on other platforms.

Score: 7

RE: Pull
by polaris20 on Mon 1st Nov 2010 22:00 UTC in reply to "Pull"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

"The most likely outcome is that Apple will simply pull VLC from the App Store, which is sad for VLC users (VLC is quite popular in the App Store).

Clarification: it's sad for VLC users that want to use it on iPhone, not VLC users on other platforms.
"

Yeah, it is sad, because it's a great app that works perfectly, and is being removed simply due to licensing restrictions.

In the end, end users of iPhones/iPads/iPod touches don't give a rat's ass about the GPL, they'll just be pissed that they can't get the app anymore. That sends a negative message about open source software, in my opinion, and that's a shame.

Score: 3

RE[2]: Pull
by FrankenFuss on Mon 1st Nov 2010 22:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Pull"
FrankenFuss Member since:
2009-08-05

In the end, end users of iPhones/iPads/iPod touches don't give a rat's ass about the GPL, they'll just be pissed that they can't get the app anymore. That sends a negative message about open source software, in my opinion, and that's a shame.


It would be a shame. The binary-distribution controversy only applies to a very small, almost insignificant, few that want to uphold the GPL, no matter what the cost to the apps distribution and reputation. In the real world, most people would download the app from the App store from those machines, as needed. They just can't use iTunes for unlimited distribution. Again...only an insignificant few would care about this. But, if they want to press it...go ahead. Apple will just drop the apps and users will get something else.

Score: 1

RE[3]: Pull
by Neolander on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 07:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Pull"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

It would be a shame. The binary-distribution controversy only applies to a very small, almost insignificant, few that want to uphold the GPL, no matter what the cost to the apps distribution and reputation. In the real world, most people would download the app from the App store from those machines, as needed. They just can't use iTunes for unlimited distribution. Again...only an insignificant few would care about this. But, if they want to press it...go ahead. Apple will just drop the apps and users will get something else.

That's a very complicated matter.

One one hand, as you said, this is going to cause very bad PR for VLC, VideoLAN, and the GPL. This means more people using WTFPL/MIT/BSD-style licensing on the web, which is not necessarily good news.

On the other hand... This is serious legal matters. One of the four basic principles of GPL (free redistribution) is hurted. If we just ignore the thing, it's violating the law AND those basic moral principles. This will be remembered, and exhibited from the abyss in the worst situation possible.

I think that either way, we're stuck. It could have been better if no one had noticed the issue, but now that it has happened... Well... There's no way back.

In my opinion, the concept of the App Store itself is a monster, and now that it's hurting things I like I'm going to hate it even more ;)

Score: 3

the 'spirit' of gpl
by Adurbe on Mon 1st Nov 2010 18:01 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

I have no problem with the port being included.

According to the gnu.org site GPL explained as this;

Nobody should be restricted by the software they use. There are four freedoms that every user should have:

the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
the freedom to change the software to suit your needs,
the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and
the freedom to share the changes you make.



I dont think these freedoms are lost by it being on the App Store when the source is available. If the 'legality' of the licence doesnt allow this means of distribution, I would argue its the Licence that is wrong and needs updating.

No licence/law is perfect, it needs to adapt to ensure its goals are upheld in a changing world.

Score: 4

RE: the 'spirit' of gpl
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 1st Nov 2010 18:03 UTC in reply to "the 'spirit' of gpl"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

No licence/law is perfect, it needs to adapt to ensure its goals are upheld in a changing world.


Even when those changes are EXACTLY what your license is supposed to protect from?

Score: 2

RE[2]: the 'spirit' of gpl
by Adurbe on Mon 1st Nov 2010 18:27 UTC in reply to "RE: the 'spirit' of gpl"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

rather than arguing generalities, what specific area of the App Store terms of service do you think impedes these rights?

I am not a lawyer (in case you hadnt guessed) but my understanding is GPLv3 does not forbid DRM protections on content nor code outright. However it IS giving anyone permission to circumvent them

What I think is the relevant bit of the GPL

3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.
No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures.

When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures.

Score: 2

RE[3]: the 'spirit' of gpl
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 1st Nov 2010 18:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: the 'spirit' of gpl"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

rather than arguing generalities, what specific area of the App Store terms of service do you think impedes these rights?


Easy enough - if you had read the article, you would know already, as it's in one of the links.

Section 6:

Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.


Do the math. Apple imposes restrictions on what you can do with the binary, through both technological measures (DRM) as well as through its ToS.

This isn't rocket science, people.

Edited 2010-11-01 18:33 UTC

Score: 4

RE[4]: the 'spirit' of gpl
by Headrush on Mon 1st Nov 2010 18:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: the 'spirit' of gpl"
Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

Do the math. Apple imposes restrictions on what you can do with the binary, through both technological measures (DRM) as well as through its ToS.

This isn't rocket science, people.

Isn't the DRM more like a wrapper for inclusion in App Store. The VLC source+Cocoa additions can still be freely posted?

If the above is true can't any person easily take and modify said code as it would be freely available and an iOS developer membership for personal use is free also?

Score: 2

RE[5]: the 'spirit' of gpl
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 1st Nov 2010 19:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: the 'spirit' of gpl"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It's not about the code. It's about the binary.

Apple gives you a binary but they do not allow you to do what you want with said binary. They place restrictions through DRM and their ToS. This violates the GPL of said binary.

Again - this is so straightforward I'm feeling I'm wasting my time repeating myself.

Score: 5

RE[6]: the 'spirit' of gpl
by fewt on Mon 1st Nov 2010 19:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: the 'spirit' of gpl"
fewt Member since:
2010-06-09

VLC is distributed under GPL version 2.

"Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. The text of the license can be found on the GNU website."

http://www.videolan.org/support/faq.html

From the GNU GPL v2:

<snip>

"You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code."

<snip>

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

<snip>

- http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html

The only thing that the author has done wrong here is fail to provide the source as required by GPL v2.

Score: 2

RE[6]: the 'spirit' of gpl
by Adurbe on Mon 1st Nov 2010 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: the 'spirit' of gpl"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

Sometimes us simple folk need things pointing out ;)
I am not TRYING to be obtuse (sorry if you think I am btw) I am just finding it hard to distinguish between say, the Apple App Store and the Android Market place, or any system capable of selling* GPL apps and how these stores have removed a right granted by the GPL.

* when i say selling, the cost may be 0 but the software is 'bought' through a store front

Score: 2

RE[7]: the 'spirit' of gpl
by Adurbe on Mon 1st Nov 2010 19:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: the 'spirit' of gpl"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

I will answer myself

One restriction is the ability to install only on a limited number of devices.

This is a purchase restriction which Does go against the GPL granted rights. The GPL licence then does give you the right to circumvent that restriction in order to meet the GPL.

Score: 2

RE[6]: the 'spirit' of gpl
by Headrush on Mon 1st Nov 2010 21:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: the 'spirit' of gpl"
Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

Violates the GPL of said binary.

Again - this is so straightforward I'm feeling I'm wasting my time repeating myself.

For you it might be straight forward but for us that don't study the GPL it isn't and we appreciate clarification.
(I'm sure someone will just say read it, but reading it isn't always clear or understandable for all of us.)

I never knew about the binary aspect and like many might assume that if the source for the entire source including the Cocoa parts was made available, how as end users we are being hurt by DRM additions that appear to add nothing more than making it available on an iPhone.

If someone wants to modify the binary on app store then can compile themselves and re-add to app store or install locally.

So I think like me many might see this as a possible collision between the intent of GPL and the exact law of GPL. (if that makes sense)

Guess we'll have to turn VLC into a web app for iPhone. ;)

Edited 2010-11-01 21:09 UTC

Score: 2

RE[7]: the 'spirit' of gpl
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 1st Nov 2010 21:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: the 'spirit' of gpl"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Yes, but I pointed it out in the article, and like 5 times in this comment thread alone. At some point, even I lost my patience.

And I'm usually quite lovable. Want a ponyride and a hug*?

*Offer not applicable if applicant is male and/or under 18. ID required.

Score: 1

RE[7]: the 'spirit' of gpl
by FrankenFuss on Mon 1st Nov 2010 21:10 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: the 'spirit' of gpl"
FrankenFuss Member since:
2009-08-05

This is all very amusing. If the creators of VLC want to make a point, they are certainly welcome to do so. Apple will just drop the app from the App store where it will soon be forgotten by the users. Besides, it's not that great of an app on the iPad/iPhone platform.

End of story.

Score: 0

RE[5]: the 'spirit' of gpl
by _txf_ on Mon 1st Nov 2010 19:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: the 'spirit' of gpl"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

However DRM is modifying the binary. For this to pass the gpl one would need the source of the drm and of the binary. If the app was published as the binary of just the source then there would be no problem

Score: 2

RE: the 'spirit' of gpl
by Valhalla on Mon 1st Nov 2010 18:09 UTC in reply to "the 'spirit' of gpl"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

If the 'legality' of the licence doesnt allow this means of distribution, I would argue its the Licence that is wrong and needs updating.

A licence that exists to protect rights of end users should change to accomodate a locked-in environment which places huge restrictions on end users? Are you serious?

Score: 6

RE[2]: the 'spirit' of gpl
by Adurbe on Mon 1st Nov 2010 18:34 UTC in reply to "RE: the 'spirit' of gpl"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

What right have you lost by it being included on the store?

I appreciate Apple's store in unpopular in certain quarters, for a host of reasons, but I genuinely dont see where its restrictions are relevant to the aims of GPL licence.

Score: 2

RE[3]: the 'spirit' of gpl
by red_devel on Mon 1st Nov 2010 21:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: the 'spirit' of gpl"
red_devel Member since:
2006-03-30

What right have you lost by it being included on the store?

I've lost the right to redistribute that binary to whoever I want, according to Apple's App Store Term of Service. This is in violation of the GPL, both by the letter AND spirit of the law. It should be removed as well as all apps using GPL'd code or Apple should change their policy, period.

Score: 2

RE[4]: the 'spirit' of gpl
by FrankenFuss on Mon 1st Nov 2010 21:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: the 'spirit' of gpl"
FrankenFuss Member since:
2009-08-05

I agree with you. I think Apple should get rid of all the GPL'd apps from App store.

Score: 1

RE[3]: the 'spirit' of gpl
by lemur2 on Mon 1st Nov 2010 23:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: the 'spirit' of gpl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

What right have you lost by it being included on the store?

I appreciate Apple's store in unpopular in certain quarters, for a host of reasons, but I genuinely dont see where its restrictions are relevant to the aims of GPL licence.


It is relevant because there are restrictions which aren't in the GPL license.

The code doesn't belong to the App Store.

The only way that the App Store has required-by-law permission to distribute the code (that isn't theirs) is to abide by the GPL license. That means adding no extra restrictions (whatever they are). None at all. As soon as the App Store adds extra restrictions, they violate the terms of the GPL, and as a consequence they have no permission to distribute the code.

Distributing someone else's code without permission is a violation of copyright law.

Score: 2

RE[4]: the 'spirit' of gpl
by fewt on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 00:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: the 'spirit' of gpl"
fewt Member since:
2010-06-09

"What right have you lost by it being included on the store?

I appreciate Apple's store in unpopular in certain quarters, for a host of reasons, but I genuinely dont see where its restrictions are relevant to the aims of GPL licence.


It is relevant because there are restrictions which aren't in the GPL license.

The code doesn't belong to the App Store.

The only way that the App Store has required-by-law permission to distribute the code (that isn't theirs) is to abide by the GPL license. That means adding no extra restrictions (whatever they are). None at all. As soon as the App Store adds extra restrictions, they violate the terms of the GPL, and as a consequence they have no permission to distribute the code.

Distributing someone else's code without permission is a violation of copyright law.
"

It seems that you don't understand the GPL v2, not surprising. There aren't any extra restrictions, except those that exist in your imagination.

Score: 1

RE: the 'spirit' of gpl
by mrhasbean on Mon 1st Nov 2010 23:30 UTC in reply to "the 'spirit' of gpl"
mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.


OK, so let me get this right. Apple change their terms to allow GPL apps but because they're restricting the end user from redistributing the binary which anyone else can obtain for free from the iTunes store anyway this is grounds to challenge the whole thing? Sounds like geeks being wankers for the sake of being wankers.

Score: 3

It is GPL
by sukru on Mon 1st Nov 2010 18:04 UTC
sukru
Member since:
2006-11-19

Wasn't one of the freedoms the ability to sell the code for as much as we want, as long as we keep the license?

For me the situation seems be as absurd as RedHat suing CentOS for copying their code, or maybe Linux kernel developers suing every major router manufacturer on the market, since they cannot put unsigned custom builds.

But unfortunately I don't think Apple will take sides in this discussion, and just pull the plug. ;)

Score: 2

RE: It is GPL
by Valhalla on Mon 1st Nov 2010 18:13 UTC in reply to "It is GPL"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Wasn't one of the freedoms the ability to sell the code for as much as we want, as long as we keep the license?

No, you need to ABIDE by the licence, else you are in violation of copyright.

Score: 2

RE[2]: It is GPL
by sukru on Mon 1st Nov 2010 19:49 UTC in reply to "RE: It is GPL"
sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

Then I have a misunderstanding somewhere.

As far as I know, I can take any GPL'ed code, compile and package it, and sell it to customers, as long as I make the original code and also my modifications available in readable source code format on request.

Isn't this exactly what RedHat does?

(Ethically you'll also need to contribute back).

Score: 2

No worries
by TADS on Mon 1st Nov 2010 18:07 UTC
TADS
Member since:
2010-11-01

No worries, even if Apple pulls VLC from the app store, the developers can just distribute it from their own site.

After all, why should users suffer the loss of a kick ass, useful, application just because of some inconsequential[1] licensing terms?

Just check the box stating that you're a consenting adult willing to install non-app store applications and... oh... wait.


[1] In this case the spirit of the GPL is, I believe, upheld. The source code is available and you can get to it from the application itself.

Score: 2

RE: No worries
by shmerl on Mon 1st Nov 2010 18:37 UTC in reply to "No worries"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

> even if Apple pulls VLC from the app store, the
> developers can just distribute it from their own site.

They did it from the beginning:
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-ios.html

I'm not sure why app store problems are equated with unavailability of the program itself for end users. There is no need to rush anywhere.

Score: 1

RE: No worries
by lemur2 on Mon 1st Nov 2010 23:41 UTC in reply to "No worries"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

In this case the spirit of the GPL is, I believe, upheld. The source code is available and you can get to it from the application itself.


No it isn't.

The spirit of the GPL license is that when one party (e.g. the App Store) receives the code under GPL terms, if that party wishes to re-distribute the code (as is the very function of the App Store), then downstream recipients must receive the code under the exact same terms and conditions that the first party received it under.

This is only fair, after all. The same rights for everyone, even if they happen to be iPhone or iPad users.

No added restrictions, no extra ifs, buts or maybes.

If the App Store is unable to pass the code on to downstream recipients under the exact same terms and conditions as the App Store received the code, then under the license for that code the App Store has NO permission to pass it on at all.

Under copyright law, a party is required to get permission (in the form of a license) in order to pass on code to downstream recipients. The App Store doesn't have that permission, it has no license.

Score: 3

RE[2]: No worries
by fewt on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 00:24 UTC in reply to "RE: No worries"
fewt Member since:
2010-06-09

"In this case the spirit of the GPL is, I believe, upheld. The source code is available and you can get to it from the application itself.


No it isn't.

The spirit of the GPL license is that when one party (e.g. the App Store) receives the code under GPL terms, if that party wishes to re-distribute the code (as is the very function of the App Store), then downstream recipients must receive the code under the exact same terms and conditions that the first party received it under.

This is only fair, after all. The same rights for everyone, even if they happen to be iPhone or iPad users.

No added restrictions, no extra ifs, buts or maybes.

If the App Store is unable to pass the code on to downstream recipients under the exact same terms and conditions as the App Store received the code, then under the license for that code the App Store has NO permission to pass it on at all.

Under copyright law, a party is required to get permission (in the form of a license) in order to pass on code to downstream recipients. The App Store doesn't have that permission, it has no license.
"

The source code is available, so per GPL v2, all of the conditions for redistribution have been met.

Score: 1

RE[3]: No worries
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 00:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No worries"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Please, you're just embarassing yourself now. It's clear you do not understand the GPL one bit. Access to the source code is not the ONLY requirement for redistribution. Another requirement, as has been pointed out 7472846657838364 times in this thread alone, is that no additional restrictions may be placed upon the application, yet, this is exactly what Apple does, e.g. by limiting it to only five devices.

Ergo, Apple, as distributor, is violating the GPL.

This is GPL 101.

Score: 1

v RE[4]: No worries
by fewt on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 00:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No worries"
RE[5]: No worries
by apoclypse on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 01:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: No worries"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Thom is so blinded by his Apple hate that he doesn't really realize that this will affect other app stores as well, like Android's market place. If you want a real article without someone looking down their nose at you check out ars take on it. They actually do some real insightful analysis about the situation.

Frankly, I'm about done with this site. At this point I feel like Thom is trying to get hits by being a douche.

Score: 2

RE[6]: No worries
by Valhalla on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 01:44 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: No worries"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

he doesn't really realize that this will affect other app stores as well, like Android's market place.

Well, if they to impose additional restrictions upon all programs that goes through their app store then yes, it will. I don't know what their terms are though, also aren't you able to manually install whatever you want on your Android (without jailbreaking) or have I missed something?

Score: 2

RE[6]: No worries
by TechGeek on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 02:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: No worries"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Well I read the Ars article already, they had one whole sentence about other app stores. Basically that this may affect other app stores. Well, duh! Android doesn't have a problem though. You don't HAVE to go through the Android app store to install software on your Droid. Therefore, there is no need to go to any other site except the source of the app. But Google isn't bent on making everyone use them as the source of all apps so I guess we'll be ok there.

Score: 2

RE[6]: No worries
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 10:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: No worries"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Frankly, I'm about done with this site. At this point I feel like Thom is trying to get hits by being a douche.


If being right makes me a douche... Well, don't let the door hit you.

Score: 2

RE[5]: No worries
by Valhalla on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 01:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: No worries"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24



No You!:
http://www.fsf.org/news/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gp...

Excerpt from this link (emphasis mine):

-'Along the same lines, we'll be talking about GPLv2 specifically in this blog post, since that's the license at issue, but this analysis would apply to all versions of the GNU GPL and AGPL. Section 6 of GPLv2 says:

Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

(Emphasis added.) This last sentence is a crucial part of the strong copyleft in the GPL and AGPL: it prevents distributors from using separate legal agreements, like Terms of Service or NDAs, to take away the freedoms that the license is supposed to grant. This is the license condition that Apple is violating when it distributes GPL-covered software through the App Store.'

So yes, Thom was right.

Score: 4

RE[6]: No worries
by fewt on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 11:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: No worries"
fewt Member since:
2010-06-09



No You!:
http://www.fsf.org/news/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gp...

Excerpt from this link (emphasis mine):

-'Along the same lines, we'll be talking about GPLv2 specifically in this blog post, since that's the license at issue, but this analysis would apply to all versions of the GNU GPL and AGPL. Section 6 of GPLv2 says:

Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

(Emphasis added.) This last sentence is a crucial part of the strong copyleft in the GPL and AGPL: it prevents distributors from using separate legal agreements, like Terms of Service or NDAs, to take away the freedoms that the license is supposed to grant. This is the license condition that Apple is violating when it distributes GPL-covered software through the App Store.'

So yes, Thom was right.
"

You can't cite a blog and claim it as fact. The FSF can speculate all it wants about how their license should be used, however as we found out with Tivo it is not as black and white as they want you to believe. Without case-law to back up the article it is meaningless.

For example: http://fsfe.org/projects/gplv3/brussels-rms-transcript#tivoisation

"Another major change consists of a new form attacking a user's freedom that we've seen in the past few years. It's called tivoisation. This is the practice of designing a machine so that if the user installs a modified version of a program, the machine refuses to run it.

It's named after the first product I heard of which did this, which is called the Tivo. The Tivo contains Free Software released under version two, and they provide the source code, so the user of the Tivo can modify the program and compile it, and install the modified version in his machine, whereupon the machine won't run at all because it notices that this is a modified version. This means that in some nominal sense, the user has freedom number one, but really, in practical terms it has been taken away, it has been turned into a sham. And this happens systematically, and it makes a systematic threat to users' freedom. So we've decided to block this, and the way we block it is as part of the conditions for distributing binaries, we say that if you distribute in, or for use in, a certain product, then you must provide whatever the user needs in order to install her own modified version and have them function the same way, unless her changes in the code change the function. But the point is that it's not just the user has to be able to install it and has to be able to run, but it has to be able to do the same job, despite having been modified."

Though Stallman was speaking of hardware devices restricting use, it can absolutely apply to software. The Tivo platform refusing to run modified GPL code is no different than the iPhone refusing to run a version copied from another device due to DRM. Different mechanism, with the same net effect.

Edited 2010-11-02 11:36 UTC

Score: 1

RE[7]: No worries
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 11:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: No worries"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Right. Some random dude on the internet knows better how the GPL works than the guy and organisation that wrote it.

Score: 1

RE[3]: No worries
by lemur2 on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 03:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No worries"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The source code is available, so per GPL v2, all of the conditions for redistribution have been met.


No, only one of the conditions has been met. A condition that has not been met is that downstream recipients of code (i.e. iPhone or iPad users must get the same terms and conditions, with no extra restrictions or provisos added, as the distributor, App Store, got the code).

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC3
Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.


App Store doesn't meet that condition.

Score: 2

Silly
by fewt on Mon 1st Nov 2010 18:15 UTC
fewt
Member since:
2010-06-09

Rather than having a fit that it is in the app store, all that the authors need to do is contact Applidium to ensure that the sources are released to retain GPL compliance.

It isn't Apples fault, this is the fault of Applidium for not releasing the source.

Score: 1

RE: Silly
by Valhalla on Mon 1st Nov 2010 18:38 UTC in reply to "Silly"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Rather than having a fit that it is in the app store, all that the authors need to do is contact Applidium to ensure that the sources are released to retain GPL compliance.

It isn't Apples fault, this is the fault of Applidium for not releasing the source.


AFAIK there's no problem with the source code in this case.

This is about Apple's restrictions colliding with the end user rights granted by GPL. Apple's 'Usage Rules' state:

"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."

Which sounds fine, except that Apple's usage rules violate the rights given by GPL, such as the Apple restriction of 'limiting use of a product to five Apple-authorized devices', which goes against end user rights defined in the GPL and thus is a licence violation.

Again, not a surprise, since a licence that protects end user rights meshes like oil and water with an environment like the App Store which places restrictions on end users.

They are simply not made for eachother ;)

Score: 4

RE: Silly
by lemur2 on Mon 1st Nov 2010 23:43 UTC in reply to "Silly"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Rather than having a fit that it is in the app store, all that the authors need to do is contact Applidium to ensure that the sources are released to retain GPL compliance.

It isn't Apples fault, this is the fault of Applidium for not releasing the source.


Applidium aren't attempting to place additional restrictions on the downstream recipients of the VLC code, the App Store is.

Score: 2

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Mon 1st Nov 2010 18:31 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

What is the problem? One can install it explicitly without any app stores.

Score: 1

...
by philipsw on Mon 1st Nov 2010 18:55 UTC
philipsw
Member since:
2009-07-27

"Some people have commented that this will damage the project's reputation.
Maybe so. Blame those who published and/or advertized VLC for iPad. The
fact of the GPL incompatibility was already well known. JB himself
described it as a "grey area". They decided to take the risk anyway, and
they bear full responsibility for any consequences. Personally, I don't
blame them because I know very well how a geek feels when writing cool code
for a cool new gadget."

Score: 1

i don't get it
by _gif on Mon 1st Nov 2010 19:32 UTC
_gif
Member since:
2010-03-22

If I wrire an app, I want it to spread. I want it to reach as many people as possible. I even spend a ton of marketing money to get people's attention. So what is this all about?

Score: 1

This can't be about freedom and principles
by hyko_l on Mon 1st Nov 2010 19:43 UTC
hyko_l
Member since:
2010-11-01

So let me understand this:
- VideoLAN endorses the iPad port (since they link to it on their webpage)
- they offer it for free
- they link to the sources of the iPad port, which anyone can download, study and modify
- they even give you the binary in case you don't want to obtain it from the AppStore

And still, a developer doesn't like it because....what? Because you are restricted on distributing it to only 5 devices once you install it through AppStore? Although you can offer the link to anybody for free, as well as the same binary obtained from VideoLAN? How does this again limit my freedom?

I'm sorry, but this doesn't sound as a battle for users' rights and well-being, but more as somebody having a grudge against Apple and trying to prevent users from benefitting from this application on iOS devices.

Edited 2010-11-01 19:44 UTC

Score: 0

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

This demonstrates how it limits your freedom.
If it gets pulled, that link is meaningless.

I say better sooner than later.

Score: 1

hyko_l Member since:
2010-11-01

Yes, but the sources and the exact same binary are available from VideoLAN. I can save a copy on my harddrive and distribute the application forever (though the convenience of AppStore would be lost and people would need to use an alternate store, such as Cydia). But this is no different from a normal store. It's not like if I'd buy a GPL application at retail I could force the shop to keep it forever on the shelf, or force them to distribute my copy.

Score: 1

No violation
by siki_miki on Mon 1st Nov 2010 20:32 UTC
siki_miki
Member since:
2006-01-17

Only with GPLv3 would it be a violation. There is no difference to Tivo case here, and their practice is legal. Disputing author clearly doesn't understand what rights has he given by applying the GPLv2 licence to his code.

Score: 3

RE: No violation
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 1st Nov 2010 20:43 UTC in reply to "No violation"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Sigh.

This isn't about restricting what software can run on your device (Tivoization). It's about placing additional restrictions on how you can use and/or distribute a program licensed under the GPL. It has nothing to do with Tivoization.

GPLv2 section 6:

Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.


Apple does what the part in bold forbids. How can I make this any clearer and simpler? Use my fcuking caps lock key?

Score: 1

RE[2]: No violation
by vivainio on Mon 1st Nov 2010 21:12 UTC in reply to "RE: No violation"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Apple does what the part in bold forbids. How can I make this any clearer and simpler? Use my fcuking caps lock key?


It's not entirely clear to everybody. E.g. red hat provides srpms for rhel but doesn't allow you to distribute the binary rpms. It's a common view that as long as you provide source code and don't limit how the recipient uses that, you are compliant with the GPL.

So even if someone doesn't "get it", he's not completely clueless. Personally, I'm not sure I understand this nuance of GPL yet either.

Score: 4

RE[3]: No violation
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 1st Nov 2010 21:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No violation"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

red hat provides srpms for rhel but doesn't allow you to distribute the binary rpms.


That's because of copyright on the trademarks and such, which is something else entirely.

Score: 1

RE[4]: No violation
by vivainio on Mon 1st Nov 2010 21:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No violation"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

That's because of copyright on the trademarks and such, which is something else entirely.


So does it make it ok to not allow redistribution of the binary (and remain GPL compliant) when you use a trademark in the package name? If the submitter used his own company name, he was no longer obliged to ensure that binary can be freely distributed, right?

I'm inclined to think "Program" in the license means mostly the source code.

Score: 2

RE[5]: No violation
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 1st Nov 2010 21:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: No violation"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So does it make it ok to not allow redistribution of the binary (and remain GPL compliant) when you use a trademark in the package name? If the submitter used his own company name, he was no longer obliged to ensure that binary can be freely distributed, right?


The binaries are free to be redistributed, as soon as you strip the trademarks out of them. You can take your RHEL installation, rm -f /etc/awesomeprotectedtrademarkslulz, image it, and send it out to whoever you want (with source access, of course). Since it's easier to just strip them from the source packages, that's what CentOS does.

Score: 1

RE[2]: No violation
by fewt on Mon 1st Nov 2010 21:15 UTC in reply to "RE: No violation"
fewt Member since:
2010-06-09

Sigh.

This isn't about restricting what software can run on your device (Tivoization). It's about placing additional restrictions on how you can use and/or distribute a program licensed under the GPL. It has nothing to do with Tivoization.

GPLv2 section 6:

"Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.


Apple does what the part in bold forbids. How can I make this any clearer and simpler? Use my fcuking caps lock key?
"

Using your caps lock still won't make you right. I can install a copy of the app on unlimited devices from the app store. This is just developer(s) that don't understand the GPL v2 whining. You can copy the app by syncing it to itunes, and then to another device. This is such a non-issue that it is pathetic.

Score: 1

RE[3]: No violation
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 1st Nov 2010 21:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No violation"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You can copy the app by syncing it to itunes, and then to another device. This is such a non-issue that it is pathetic.


...to a maximum of five devices, which is a limitation not allowed by the GPL. Ergo, GPL violation.

Score: 1

RE[4]: No violation
by fewt on Mon 1st Nov 2010 21:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No violation"
fewt Member since:
2010-06-09

"You can copy the app by syncing it to itunes, and then to another device. This is such a non-issue that it is pathetic.


...to a maximum of five devices, which is a limitation not allowed by the GPL. Ergo, GPL violation.
"

It is not a violation of the GPL version 2, as it doesn't define that under GPL v2 you are promised unlimited copies, only that you "may" copy.

"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)"

"6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License."

If VLC was GPL v3, I would probably agree with you.

Edited 2010-11-01 21:54 UTC

Score: 2

RE[5]: No violation
by apoclypse on Mon 1st Nov 2010 22:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: No violation"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

So, basically Thom posted like 5 times that we are all idiots and he doesn't seem all to sure himself. That's some top notch reporting there.

As far as I know the GPL2 does not state that binaries must remain unrestricted, in fact that's the reason version 3 exists in the first place, to prevent DRM on gpl'ed binaries among other things. Is VLC gpl3? If it is then Thom you are right, we are all idiots, otherwise STFU and stop berating people for bringing up valid points when you are just as "informed" as we are.

Score: 4

RE[6]: No violation
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 1st Nov 2010 22:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: No violation"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

As far as I know the GPL2 does not state that binaries must remain unrestricted


It does. Relevant section posted about ten times now.

Score: 1

RE[5]: No violation
by TechGeek on Mon 1st Nov 2010 22:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: No violation"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Do you not get the whole "no other restrictions" part? It doesn't matter what Apple does or doesn't allow you to copy. What matters is that there is a Terms of Service that places restrictions on the software. Apple can change them at ANY time and for any reason. This is why the clause is in the GPL. As long as they reserve the right to control the platform, then it will violate that part of the GPL. Remember, the GPL is meant to provide the same freedom with software that you have with the hardware you own. Obviously Apple isn't giving that freedom out with their products.

EDIT: Edit for making an incorrect statement.

Edited 2010-11-01 22:11 UTC

Score: 2

RE[6]: No violation
by fewt on Mon 1st Nov 2010 22:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: No violation"
fewt Member since:
2010-06-09

Do you not get the whole "no other restrictions" part? It doesn't matter what Apple does or doesn't allow you to copy. What matters is that there is a Terms of Service that places restrictions on the software. Apple can change them at ANY time and for any reason. This is why the clause is in the GPL. As long as they reserve the right to control the platform, then it will violate that part of the GPL. Remember, the GPL is meant to provide the same freedom with software that you have with the hardware you own. Obviously Apple isn't giving that freedom out with their products.

EDIT: Edit for making an incorrect statement.


Apple only exposes a mechanism for software distribution. They did not create the software, therefore their terms aren't relevant in regard to the GPL.

"6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License."

This applies to the company that packaged VLC, not the delivery engine.

Blaming the Apple app store for imposing restrictions would be no different than claiming that the Ubuntu software store violated the GPL because there isn't a link to download the source code for each app available, or that the package wasn't retained on the file system after installation.

The counter argument to all of this crap is that by removing the app from the app store the authors of VLC would effectively be restricting distribution which could (and probably would) be a violation of the GPL v2.

Think about that..

Edited 2010-11-01 22:18 UTC

Score: 2

RE[7]: No violation
by lemur2 on Mon 1st Nov 2010 23:54 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: No violation"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Blaming the Apple app store for imposing restrictions would be no different than claiming that the Ubuntu software store violated the GPL because there isn't a link to download the source code for each app available,


... but their is.

Ubuntu provides a "Sources" repository as well as a binary repository.

http://repogen.simplylinux.ch/

Each repository is in a pair ... Main and Main Sources, Security and Security Sources, Updates and Updates Sources.

Binary repositories, as well as the corresponding source repositories.

So much for that assertion. Shot down in flames.

Edited 2010-11-01 23:55 UTC

Score: 2

RE[7]: No violation
by TechGeek on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 02:21 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: No violation"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

You're wrong. Its as simple as that. Apple is the distributor. Therefore they are subject to the GPL. Ubuntu becomes liable to the GPL when the distribute their distro. If they were to keep it totally in house, there would be no restrictions on what they could do with it. The GPL ONLY covers distribution.

And even IF you were right, then it would be Applidium violating the GPL, and they would be forced to remove it. Either way, the app should be removed due to Apple's restrictive terms.

As for the authors, as long as they are all in agreement, the GPL doesn't apply to them. They have the right to do what ever they want with their software.

Score: 2

RE[2]: No violation
by polaris20 on Mon 1st Nov 2010 22:09 UTC in reply to "RE: No violation"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

Thom, are you still the editor of this site? How about acting a little bit more professional, and less condescending and arrogant?

Score: 3

RE[3]: No violation
by Valhalla on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 00:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No violation"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Thom, are you still the editor of this site? How about acting a little bit more professional, and less condescending and arrogant?


Oh I don't know. Looking at some of the comments here we probably have the amount of professionalism in our editor that we deserve ;D

Score: 2

Nothing of value was lost
by Moredhas on Mon 1st Nov 2010 20:49 UTC
Moredhas
Member since:
2008-04-10

VLC for iPad, as useful as it may be, is still garbage for one simple reason: reliance on iTunes to sync files to it. Make me a VLC for iPad that works through the magic of copy and paste, then I'll worry over it, but as it is, I can't use it anyway. As far as I know, there's no Linux solution to sync files to iPad apps (dropbox probably works, but it's not ideal).

Score: 3

RE: Nothing of value was lost
by werpu on Mon 1st Nov 2010 21:13 UTC in reply to "Nothing of value was lost"
werpu Member since:
2006-01-18

VLC for iPad, as useful as it may be, is still garbage for one simple reason: reliance on iTunes to sync files to it. Make me a VLC for iPad that works through the magic of copy and paste, then I'll worry over it, but as it is, I can't use it anyway. As far as I know, there's no Linux solution to sync files to iPad apps (dropbox probably works, but it's not ideal).


Thats a problem in the apple wallet garden, you only are allowed to push anything onto the device with iTunes as gatekeeper in between. You dont like it, then buy something else, it is as simple as that.

Score: 3

RE[2]: Nothing of value was lost
by Moredhas on Mon 1st Nov 2010 21:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Nothing of value was lost"
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

It's something I can live with, and I was using Windows at the time I bought my iPad, I just wish something like Banshee would have file syncing capabilities too. I figure someone will do it eventually, but I'm not holding my breath for it. Until then, I'll just read my ebooks in Stanza (or carry my Kobo, which is the better ebook reader anyway).

Score: 2

RE[2]: Nothing of value was lost
by shmerl on Mon 1st Nov 2010 22:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Nothing of value was lost"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

You can work with it other way around. Mount iPad's filesystem with sshfs from another computer.

Score: 1

RE[2]: Nothing of value was lost
by Kroc on Mon 1st Nov 2010 23:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Nothing of value was lost"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Epic typo. "Wallet Garden". I love it!

Score: 2

RE[3]: Nothing of value was lost
by shmerl on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 01:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nothing of value was lost"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Yep ;)

Score: 1

I don't see it
by sigzero on Mon 1st Nov 2010 21:35 UTC
sigzero
Member since:
2006-01-03

It doesn't violate the GPL at all.

Score: 2

RE: I don't see it
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 1st Nov 2010 21:42 UTC in reply to "I don't see it"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So, even though the GPL specifically states, quite clearly, that you may not impose restrictions on the user's ability to "copy, distribute or modify" the application, and Apple does impose several of those restrictions (e.g. only on five authorised devices), you don't see it?

Seriously. Have people become stupid all of a sudden? Are we looking at left-over sugar highs from Halloween?

Score: 1

RE[2]: I don't see it
by TheGZeus on Mon 1st Nov 2010 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't see it"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Precisely. Ugh.

Score: 1

RE[2]: I don't see it
by fewt on Mon 1st Nov 2010 21:47 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't see it"
fewt Member since:
2010-06-09

The GPL version 2 says no such thing, it is one of the many holes that the GPL version 3 was created to fill.

Score: 1

RE: I don't see it
by TheGZeus on Mon 1st Nov 2010 21:43 UTC in reply to "I don't see it"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

So you're a lawyer, have read and understand every line of the document, and reviewed all the court cases involving the GPL and that's all you have to say?
Even if that were all true, which it is not, I _still_ would have to call 'fail'.

Score: 1

Apple GPL violations
by TechGeek on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 02:34 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

There is also another violation that Apple does that wasn't brought up here. Apple adds DRM code to each app that they sell. That DRM on GPL'd software would also have to be GPL'd. As they aren't disclosing the source of the DRM, they are again in violation of the GPL. You can't mix GPL code with proprietary code and distribute it.

Score: 5

Irony
by Abstract on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 07:43 UTC
Abstract
Member since:
2009-10-24

All this bickering over freedoms, rights, etc.. Yet we all use electronics made in china (in whole or part), which as we all know has the best human rights of any other nation. God forbid you violate my software rights that I run on my computer produced in a sweatshop.

Score: 1

RE: Irony
by TheGZeus on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 10:26 UTC in reply to "Irony"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Like the USA is any better.
This is the same country that perpetrated the Trail of Tears, forced sterilisation of native women into the 1960s, Iran Contra (how about we save time and call that "CIA in general"), Nagasaki (Hiroshima was plenty), slavery, Jim Crow...

I'm just saying, look around yourself before you start talking shit.
The USA isn't a spotless white knight. We've got the same history of rape and pillage as any other knight of any colour.
Want to put a stop to human rights abuses in China? Cool. How is the boycott helping? Those companies are making the highest of tech, but that's just because that's where the profit margin is right now. If they wanted to, they could stop, and you still couldn't actually buy _any_ electronics not made of Chinese parts.
Go ahead, try to find a supplier of resistors, capacitors, op-amps, diodes that isn't based out of China, or themselves rely on Chinese suppliers.

Score: 2