Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Sat 8th Jan 2011 19:28 UTC, submitted by sjvn
GNU, GPL, Open Source Some people swore to me that just because the free-software General Public License (GPL) clashes with the Apple App Store's Terms of Service (ToS), didn't mean that Apple would actually pull down GPLed apps. Well, Apple just did. Remi Denis-Courmont, a Linux developer of the popular VLC media player, has just announced that Apple had pulled the popular GPLed VLC media player from its App Store.
Order by: Score:
v ...
by Hiev on Sat 8th Jan 2011 19:49 UTC
RE: ...
by Elv13 on Sat 8th Jan 2011 20:04 UTC in reply to "..."
Elv13 Member since:
2006-06-12

No, you can update android packages from other sources than the market, so if you want to edit the code and use your own version, you can.

Reply Score: 9

v RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Sat 8th Jan 2011 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
RE[3]: ...
by Elv13 on Sat 8th Jan 2011 21:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Elv13 Member since:
2006-06-12

I have a nexus one and I can, there is a setting disabled by default to enable that

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by Radio on Sun 9th Jan 2011 16:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

That would be a terrible security flaw, so I don't think you are right.

You know what else is a terrible security flaw? Having access to the internet.I do hope your smartphone doesn't come with a browser.

Reply Score: 6

RE: ...
by SlackerJack on Sat 8th Jan 2011 20:09 UTC in reply to "..."
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Google didn't allow it from the start, big difference. According to Google's TOS, you have no right to any of the source code unless written permission is granted.

I suspect Google will refuse any GPL software, which is fine if it's clear from their TOS.

Reply Score: 2

RE: ...
by lemur2 on Sun 9th Jan 2011 06:44 UTC in reply to "..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Ain't the same case with Android market?


List of open source Android applications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open_source_Android_applicatio...

Quite a lot of GPL licensed Android applications listed there.

They weren't at all difficult to find.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Sun 9th Jan 2011 15:57 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Do you people now how to read?

I said ANDROID MARKET. Are those apps. listed in the ANDROID MARKET?

Geez.

Edited 2011-01-09 15:57 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ...
by Radio on Sun 9th Jan 2011 16:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Do you know how to read? The fifth colum of the wikipedia page tells you if the app is in the Android Market.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by Hiev on Sun 9th Jan 2011 16:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Then why nobody writes to them if is in the same situation than the App. store?

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: ...
by No it isnt on Sun 9th Jan 2011 19:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

It isn't in the same situation.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: ...
by Hiev on Mon 10th Jan 2011 01:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Maybe you want to elaborate on that?

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: ...
by No it isnt on Mon 10th Jan 2011 09:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

The Android Market doesn't have Apple's mandatory DRM.

Reply Score: 3

That isn't quite right
by sigzero on Sat 8th Jan 2011 19:53 UTC
sigzero
Member since:
2006-01-03

They requested Apple to (a) change the policies of the store or (b) remove the software from it, and they got exactly that. Then they complained.

Reply Score: 3

RE: That isn't quite right
by antoniofonseca on Sat 8th Jan 2011 20:29 UTC in reply to "That isn't quite right"
antoniofonseca Member since:
2011-01-08

"This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object." -- The Joker

Reply Score: 2

RE: That isn't quite right
by vivainio on Sat 8th Jan 2011 21:25 UTC in reply to "That isn't quite right"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

They requested Apple to (a) change the policies of the store or (b) remove the software from it, and they got exactly that. Then they complained.


People complaining are different from people who were asking for these things.

I see the path Apple took (pulling the app) as the only sensible one. The app shouldn't have been pushed to the app store in the first place.

Reply Score: 3

RE: That isn't quite right
by tetek on Sat 8th Jan 2011 21:28 UTC in reply to "That isn't quite right"
tetek Member since:
2010-10-04

Yeah, I hope they are happy. GPL lawyers/prosecutors are.

So situation looks like this:
- few of open source advocates says "it's all apple fault cause they didn't change the TOS"
- apple won't change TOS just for few apps
- common people can't use VLC on iDevices

I think that the main lost is for "The People" - average Joe.
It should not work like this. I'm pretty sure that creator(s) of GPL hadn't this in mind when they wanted to create a free software for everyone.

In this case a company ported for free a free software. No one had any $ from it. You could download a source code. No one was being hurt... Everybody benefit from it.

I thought that Open Source was about freedom of software and that open source software was FOR people. Not the other way. GPL shoudn't be used as muzzle.
Above the law there is always common good. It should be. Especially that the case was just to put the foot down.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: That isn't quite right
by vivainio on Sat 8th Jan 2011 21:44 UTC in reply to "RE: That isn't quite right"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


I think that the main lost is for "The People" - average Joe.


Nah, the people losing are the ones buying Apple products (as they have less software at their disposal). And, by proxy, Apple.

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: That isn't quite right
by tetek on Sat 8th Jan 2011 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That isn't quite right"
tetek Member since:
2010-10-04

And they are second category people by your standards?

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: That isn't quite right
by vivainio on Sat 8th Jan 2011 22:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: That isn't quite right"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

And they are second category people by your standards?


Nah, I objected to using "people" in general, as Apple customers are a very small subset of "people".

One could argue that when Apple loses, "people" win in long term, as money is funneled towards more open ecosystems and less to Apple specific technologies.

Reply Score: 8

RE[5]: That isn't quite right
by tetek on Sat 8th Jan 2011 22:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: That isn't quite right"
tetek Member since:
2010-10-04

This small subset is equal to android users in USA.
iOS ecosystem is about 100 millions of devices. It's not so small.

And I don't think that Apple will lose. Nor the "more open ecosystems" will thrive. Average Joe just lost the app and he won't even know about it. The hole will be covered by other apps. That's all.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: That isn't quite right
by vivainio on Sat 8th Jan 2011 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: That isn't quite right"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

And I don't think that Apple will lose. Nor the "more open ecosystems" will thrive. Average Joe just lost the app and he won't even know about it. The hole will be covered by other apps. That's all.


Yeah, no long term harm done. Apart from the developers that ported the software over to iOS, I bet they are not happy with this turn of events. Next time, look before you leap ;-).

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: That isn't quite right
by tetek on Sat 8th Jan 2011 22:14 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: That isn't quite right"
tetek Member since:
2010-10-04

The true is that vlc developers could grant mobileVLC for example BSD license. Or GPL without that one rule about distribution. It would be an act of good will.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: That isn't quite right
by kristoph on Mon 10th Jan 2011 18:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: That isn't quite right"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Actually, the opposite would be a more logical conclusion. The driving force of the free market is the generation of revenue. No revenue, no market.

Because the Apple App Store is the single largest source of revenue for independent developers the limit on the use of GPL in the App Store will effectively reduce the pool of developers using the GPL.

]{

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: That isn't quite right
by Neolander on Sat 8th Jan 2011 21:52 UTC in reply to "RE: That isn't quite right"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I thought that Open Source was about freedom of software and that open source software was FOR people. Not the other way. GPL shoudn't be used as muzzle.
Above the law there is always common good. It should be. Especially that the case was just to put the foot down.

Sorry, but the goal of GPL is in my opinion not to defend "people" as a whole. The closest thing to that would be public domain, AFAIK, and GPL is very far away from public domain.

The GPL's primary goal, the way I see it, is to promote collaboration in software development and distribution. You use or redistribute my software, alright, but then you contribute back by sharing your modifications with the rest of the world and letting users share my software the way they want. This way, we and the rest of the community of software developers as a whole benefit from our effort, as the amount of publicly accessible open-source work grows.

On the other side of the coin, the App Store's TOS are the exact opposite of the GPL. Among them, you can find that...
-Software developers are forbidden from distributing their software (source included) outside of the App Store. So every software on the App Store which is not closed source is illegal and it's Apple's right to remove it whenever they want.
-Software users cannot freely share the product they have bought. So when the App Store will close its doors, all work which was published on it will be definitely lost. It's generally-speaking a very bad idea to depend on a single mode of distribution.

No way both ideologies might ever agree.

Reply Score: 15

RE[3]: That isn't quite right
by tetek on Sat 8th Jan 2011 22:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That isn't quite right"
tetek Member since:
2010-10-04

-Software developers are forbidden from distributing their software (source included) outside of the App Store. So every software on the App Store which is not closed source is illegal and it's Apple's right to remove it whenever they want.


Only the second statement is correct. Quoted above is not. I just checked developer agreement and there isn't anything about code. There is only notice about distributing application - you can't distribute it i.e. in cydia.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: That isn't quite right
by matto1990 on Sun 9th Jan 2011 00:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That isn't quite right"
matto1990 Member since:
2009-04-18

The code was contributed back. The developers of the iOS app was also open source. The only problem is the DRM that apple ships with the market apps. That's all. I don't see why it has to be pulled for such a small technicality.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: That isn't quite right
by mrhasbean on Sun 9th Jan 2011 01:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That isn't quite right"
RE[4]: That isn't quite right
by vivainio on Sun 9th Jan 2011 01:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: That isn't quite right"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

So the f'tards at VLC got what they deserved, and now they lose out. I just feel for the dev who spent his time only to have VLC screw him over - they were the ones who whinged when the essence of GPL was not being inhibited.


Well, the only dev "losing out" is the guy who wasted his time doing the port.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: That isn't quite right
by JAlexoid on Sun 9th Jan 2011 06:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: That isn't quite right"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

they were the ones who whinged when the essence of GPL was not being inhibited.

What the ...(I will not resort to profanity) is wrong with people!
FSF legal counsel said that GPL and Apple's TOS were incompatible and yet, people like you think you have more legal understanding than layers that wrote and edited the GPL or people that actually write the "essence" of the document into the document.
Thankfully we still have the people behind GPL alive and well, but their stance somehow leaves people "who know better" undeterred!

Don't cross RMS, he has two katanas! http://xkcd.com/225/

Reply Score: 7

FellowConspirator Member since:
2007-12-13

If you purchase an enterprise license, there's no limit to the number. We use an open-source iPad where I work that is available to everyone in the company for ad hoc distribution and is not available through the App Store.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: That isn't quite right
by bassbeast on Sun 9th Jan 2011 03:09 UTC in reply to "RE: That isn't quite right"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

I'm pretty sure that creator(s) of GPL hadn't this in mind when they wanted to create a free software for everyone

Actually that is EXACTLY what they had in mind! The WHOLE POINT of the GPL is that you get the same freedom the developer has and Apple doesn't allow that. If Apple was allowed to skirt the GPL simply because they are popular then you might as well just toss the GPL for BSD and let any corp just make the apps proprietary.

As much as I don't agree with RMS on...well pretty much anything, since I am a Windows guy who sees nothing wrong with proprietary software, I do have to respect the license if I want to use the developer's hard work. If I want a piece of GPL code I have to share, if not then I don't use it, PERIOD. Being allowed to just "skip" the GPL because they are Apple would be NO different that just taking someone's app that I had NO rights to and selling it.

If I don't have the license then I'm infringing PERIOD and Apple was infringing by not allowing the GPL license to be upheld. It is academic. This also give an advantage to those that DO follow the GPL or allow it like Android, as they now have access to all those GPL apps that Apple does not. Now we know in the end it won't make a difference, because an iFanboy would buy a brick in a box if it came from Steve, but this at least sets a precedent on what to expect from Apple. I can't wait to see how well the Mac users react when Steve locks them into their own "app store" walled garden.

Reply Score: 13

v RE[3]: That isn't quite right
by vtolkov on Sun 9th Jan 2011 04:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That isn't quite right"
RE[4]: That isn't quite right
by bassbeast on Wed 12th Jan 2011 07:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: That isn't quite right"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Uhhhh...you don't actually know how GPL app development WORKS, do you? VLC was written by dozens of different developers over the years, some staying, some going, some only adding code to fix a single problem that bugged them.

Now because ALL those developers ONLY agreed to sharing their code under the GPL they would now have to hunt down every. single. one. of those developers, ask them if they would allow it to be released under BSD or public domain, and if they said no REWRITE those chunks of code. Now considering we have had at least two of the long term developers say NO, you are looking at probably a good 20-25% of the code right there that would have to be clean room rewritten.

In the end thanks to the community nature of GPL you can pretty much write off ever having ANY GPL code in iOS thanks to Apple's love of DRM. Now as I said I'm a Windows guy, been selling and servicing Windows machine since Win 3.1x, and I have NO problem with proprietary software. What I DO have a problem with is someone saying that Apple should be allowed to skirt the license because...well they are Apple. I know that isn't what you said but in the Apple forums that is heard often.

But theft is theft, and the ONLY way you are allowed to distribute GPL code is to follow the rules of the GPL. Otherwise it is NO different than reselling hot Windows software. If you don't follow the license you are stealing the software PERIOD, and Apple loves DRM too much to follow the license.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: That isn't quite right
by vtolkov on Wed 12th Jan 2011 08:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: That isn't quite right"
vtolkov Member since:
2006-07-26

I would prefer GPL to be changed, making it more flexible and reasonable, closer to LGPL or BSD, not App Store rules, in this particular case.

IANAL, but GPL is a kind of license, which is impossible to follow literally at all without going to the "don't ask, don't tell" mode. For example, It prohibits any limitations to distribution of GPLed software except itself. But we live in a real world, where are different states with their constitutions and legislatures. So, for example, there are export limitations. So it makes GPL software illegal in entire country, because its law adds additional limitations above GPL.

For myself, I've decided the less I'm dependent from GPL3 software, less problems I'll have. I also have some principles, and they also can conflict with GPL absolute superiority.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: That isn't quite right
by JAlexoid on Sun 9th Jan 2011 06:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That isn't quite right"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

If I want a piece of GPL code I have to share, if not then I don't use it, PERIOD.


Just a correction.
You don't have to share your code if you don't distribute derivative works based on GPLd code.
Even in if you infringe(by not complying with GPL), you would just have to remove the source of infringement (remove all of GPL code that is not under your copyright).

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: That isn't quite right
by lemur2 on Sun 9th Jan 2011 06:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That isn't quite right"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If I want a piece of GPL code I have to share, if not then I don't use it, PERIOD.


The GPL code is available for you to USE (as in run, or execute) without restriction. Fill your boots. Enjoy!

The GPL code is not however, your code, so you do not have any intrinsic right to share it, or to refuse to share it. The copyright belongs to the original authors, not to you, and they have said that you may USE their code however you please, but that you may not re-distribute their code without sharing it with everybody.

Since it isn't your code anyway, because you didn't write it, if you do want to re-distribute it how on earth does it hurt you to share that source code?

And for that matter, getting back on topic, since Apple didn't write VLC, how on earth would it hurt Apple to have allowed redistibution of VLC for iOS source code (in compliance with the code's GPL license) via Apple's App store?

Edited 2011-01-09 06:53 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: That isn't quite right
by JAlexoid on Sun 9th Jan 2011 06:12 UTC in reply to "RE: That isn't quite right"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I'm pretty sure that creator(s) of GPL hadn't this in mind when they wanted to create a free software for everyone.


Really? Richard Stallman is, thankfully, still alive and well, so we can ask him... We don't need to resort to anything paranormal...

And based on his comments, presentations and articles that is this is exactly what he wanted.

PS: The FSF, where the GPL was created and where RMS is The Big Kahuna, have already made a statement on the issue. And it ain't pro-Apple.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: That isn't quite right
by ubunho on Sun 9th Jan 2011 10:58 UTC in reply to "RE: That isn't quite right"
ubunho Member since:
2011-01-09

I'm pretty sure that creator(s) of GPL hadn't this in mind when they wanted to create a free software for everyone.


I'm pretty sure that the GPL was specifically written by Stallman and friends for exactly this kind of situation. If you're happy to give up a couple of freedoms just so you can have an easy life; you deserve all the trouble you're going to get.

How is the GPL being used as a muzzle here? Go to the VLC homepage, notice that there's a link to the iOS version of VLC? Guess what, you can download iOS VLC from that page to as many idevices as you want without having to create multiple accounts.

Here's the link:

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-ios.html

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: That isn't quite right
by shmerl on Mon 10th Jan 2011 08:13 UTC in reply to "RE: That isn't quite right"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Why not? Don't install VLC from appstore. Install it directly. That's it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: That isn't quite right
by vodoomoth on Mon 10th Jan 2011 12:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That isn't quite right"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Is it possible to install an app on an iPhone without going through the app store? I thought that was the whole point of jailbreaking...

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: That isn't quite right
by shmerl on Mon 10th Jan 2011 20:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: That isn't quite right"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Yep. Jailbreak it and install from wherever you want. Isn't it the first thing one should do to take the iPhone from default crippled state? Anyhow, I don't use one on daily basis, so I can't say what most users would do.

Reply Score: 2

Typical Apple, don't be surprised...
by cmost on Sat 8th Jan 2011 21:15 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

I'm not sure how many times it needs to be said: when you "purchase" an Apple product, you don't really own it. You merely are permitted to use it at the discretion of Apple and in accordance with all of its associated services and terms to which you agree when you buy into a vendor as locked-in as Apple. So even though you're paying thousands of dollars more for what is basically a mediocre Intel PC painted a pretty white or silver; or a media player, you definitely don't own it nor are you allowed to use it as you see fit. You'll use it how Apple sees fit and like it! Sorry. If you want GPL, open technologies, and a vendor that lets you enjoy its products without breathing down your neck then choose Linux and Android. Sure, maybe these technologies aren't as pretty or up to Apple's standards...yet, but give them a chance. A wise man once said: "Once a man has tasted freedom he will never be content to be a slave."

Edited 2011-01-08 21:18 UTC

Reply Score: 9

melgross Member since:
2005-08-12

This is also true for GPL software. It's true of ALL software sold, or free that's published under ANY license. Don't think you're so smart.

Reply Score: 1

tetek Member since:
2010-10-04

And topic is about the software

Reply Score: 2

Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

Yes but you throw in the comments about the "thousands" more for hardware and reference the desktop products which run GPL software including full Linux distros just fine.

As to the locked in iPhone environment, you are correct.

Reply Score: 2

FellowConspirator Member since:
2007-12-13

This is true of all software, not just Apple. In fact, it's true of your digital media too. Buy a Blu-Ray disc at Best Buy? Well, you're buying a license to use it on a licensed playback device for personal purposes and home viewing in a specific geographic region...

Reply Score: 1

vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Is there also a region for Blu-Ray? I thought I read somewhere that they had stopped that practice...

Reply Score: 2

polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

Let's not forget that this is the case with nearly any commercial software, not just Apple.

Oh wait; it's just more fun to demonize Apple these days, isn't it?

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Lunitik
by Lunitik on Sat 8th Jan 2011 22:27 UTC
Lunitik
Member since:
2005-08-07

In fairness, its probably not about it being GPL, but rather pertaining to patents related to the codecs, etc

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Lunitik
by tetek on Sat 8th Jan 2011 22:32 UTC in reply to "Comment by Lunitik"
tetek Member since:
2010-10-04

Patents used in software are problem for developer, not the VLC.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Lunitik
by matto1990 on Sun 9th Jan 2011 00:53 UTC in reply to "Comment by Lunitik"
matto1990 Member since:
2009-04-18

Nope, it was about the GPL being used which forbids DRM to be applied to a compiled binary of GPL software (or something like that).

Reply Score: 2

Three reasons
by fran on Sat 8th Jan 2011 22:43 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

Like it or not the reasons is three fold.

VLC was said to bring more media playback options to iphone. Apple might not want that for various reasons.
It's media purveyor business and itunes business related.

Pro-actively protecting that 30% cut revenue stream it get from each app sold.
VLC is download and donate ware.

Appease concerned iphone app developers that will resent the presence of good&free applications

Reply Score: 1

RE: Three reasons
by tetek on Sat 8th Jan 2011 22:48 UTC in reply to "Three reasons"
tetek Member since:
2010-10-04

VLC was removed from AppStore case VideoLAN ASKED for it.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Three reasons
by FrankenFuss on Sun 9th Jan 2011 19:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Three reasons"
FrankenFuss Member since:
2009-08-05

VLC was removed from AppStore case VideoLAN ASKED for it.


VideoLAN DIDN'T ask for it. It was one of the developers of VideoLAN that forced the issue. VideoLAN and the company that was distributing the app on the App Store wanted to keep it there. And, that's the unfortunate thing about this whole fiasco. It's going to give a lot of developers pause about using open source.

Reply Score: 1

Just don't buy Apple's products.
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 8th Jan 2011 23:42 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

Just don't buy an iPhone, iPad, or any other iThing Apple releases that relies exclusively on the "App Store" to obtain software. Problem solved. I can't say I'm surprised; wasn't this known to be one of the most likely and simplest of the few possible outcomes in this situation to begin with? Now if anything, to avoid making themselves look like asses again, Apple will probably be extra cautious or outright ignore requests for GPL-licensed software in the future.

To be honest... I can't blame them. This is an example where one developer of the program wants to see it succeed on Apple's portable devices, and another doesn't. And because Apple's terms of service is incompatible with the GPL, they're automatically going to just toss the GPL program before they would even consider lightening up their own terms. Anyone who didn't see this coming is blind.

Oh well, doesn't affect me--I will never own one of their stupid iGadgets.

Reply Score: 13

VZsolt Member since:
2008-10-31

Oh well, doesn't affect me--I will never own one of their stupid iGadgets.


This mess doesn't affect me either, I avoid GPL'ed software like plague unless they're absolutely necessary.

So that's even - but frankly I don't think anyone cares.

Edited 2011-01-09 09:34 UTC

Reply Score: 0

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

This mess doesn't affect me either, I avoid GPL'ed software like plague unless they're absolutely necessary.


If you write your own code, it is your code, so you may do with that whatever you wish.

If you don't write code, GPL software won't bite you, you know. You are absolutely free to run it without restriction. Fill your boots. Have a ball.

If you want to use someone else's GPL code in conjunction with your work, keep it separated from your work. Do not include any GPL source code actually within your work, but rather write your own code to run "on top of" GPL code. Here is an example of a company with a proprietary product which has done just that:
http://www.bricsys.com/common/news.jsp?ksearch=Linux

If you want to re-distribute someone else's GPL code, then simply re-distribute their source code as well. Its their code anyway, no skin of your nose to re-distribute it even as source code.

You do not have to distribute source code for your work, if you do not want to, if it was actually your work.

So, please explain, what exactly is your reason for avoiding GPL code? I'm peplexed, I truly am.

Reply Score: 5

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

So, please explain, what exactly is your reason for avoiding GPL code? I'm peplexed, I truly am.

This is likely going to end a flamewar, I wouldn't have responded to this guy if I were you... he didn't even give a reason; classic example of flamebait.

It's clear he just has blind hatred toward the GPL and likes sitting in Apple's wallet, doing everything *their* way...

Or maybe he's a proprietary software developer, getting paid to herd his users like sheep, withholding the source from them and forcing paid upgrades at his own will. Either way, I think the guy's purpose for saying that was to fire everyone up.

Don't fall for it. All I can say to the guy is: Who cares? Bend over for Apple and other proprietary companies all you want. I won't.

Edited 2011-01-09 10:52 UTC

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Lots of developers aren't sure what they can and can't do with GPL code.

Read here

http://blog.verysofisticated.com/2011/01/GPL-rebuilding-what-was-lo...

the important parts are

The GPL is a vague license, and the vague nature of the United States copyright law compounds the issue. Does a Dynamically Linked Library constitute a derivative work? To some, it doesn't, but to the Free Software Foundation, it does.


and here ...

The harm is in the idea that one is not sure if linking to a GPL library could land a liberal-license developer, like me, in court for violating some vague part of the license.


That is the confusion that many developers face and the same reason why many companies (such as my own) have a no GPL policy.

Edited 2011-01-09 10:57 UTC

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Lots of developers aren't sure what they can and can't do with GPL code.

Read here

http://blog.verysofisticated.com/2011/01/GPL-rebuilding-what-was-lo...

the important parts are

"The GPL is a vague license, and the vague nature of the United States copyright law compounds the issue. Does a Dynamically Linked Library constitute a derivative work? To some, it doesn't, but to the Free Software Foundation, it does.


and here ...

The harm is in the idea that one is not sure if linking to a GPL library could land a liberal-license developer, like me, in court for violating some vague part of the license.


That is the confusion that many developers face and the same reason why many companies (such as my own) have a no GPL policy.
"

The important thing is what actualy copyright law says, and not the stated opinion of the FSF.

Copyright law says a work is a derived work if it CONTAINS significant elements of an earlier copyrighted work.

If you dynamically link to a library, then your work simply does not contain the library. Period. This is easy to show by trying to run your work on a system where the library is not installed.

OK, the FSF might argue that your work, in dynamically linking the library, includes the functionlity of the library, but that is a very weak case. First of all, the GPL under which the library is licensed explicitly states that anyone may run the code at any time for any purpose. That should mean that you may run the code, via your application which links to it, on the system of another party as the end user, and likewise the end user may run the code. You are NOT re-distributing the GPL library, so the copyleft restrictions of the GPL simply should not apply to your code.

Secondly, it is also very relevant to note that most FOSS libraries are licensed LGPL, specifically for the purpose of clarifying that it is OK to dynamically or even statically link to the library. The LGPL has a linking exception.

Finally, proprietary applications such as this one:
http://www.bricsys.com/common/news.jsp?ksearch=Linux
call the Linux kernel and a raft of libraries extensively. No-one is threatening them in court, there is not even a hint of it, even coming from the FSF. The ONLY court cases involving GPL compliance issues have occurred when someone HAS included GPL code directly within in a product (not mere linked it, but directly cut and paste the GPL code into their product), and then re-distributed that product as closed source.

Those are the ONLY cases where there has been an issue.

VLC for iOS is certainly another such a case. VLC for iOS does unquestionably include GPL source code (from the VLC project), and Apple's App store does unquestionably redistribute that very code. Therefore, in order to be compliant with the license for VLC code, and compliant with copyright law, as a clear coase of being a derived work, VLC for iOS must comply with the license conditions for VLC, and the license in question is GPL.

It is pretty crystal clear really.

I think anyone who professes to be confused about this is simply trying one on, frankly.

Edited 2011-01-09 13:22 UTC

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

The thing is that other open source licenses such as MIT, BSD and ISC are really straight forward and easy to understand. They are also more permissive meaning I can use the code pretty much as I wish, I don't have to worry about how it integrates with my main code.

Sorry but the GPL is written in legal speak and has over 15 parts (more for version 3).

This is why developers get confused.

Reply Score: 2

vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Personally, I don't face confusion: I avoid GPL because I understand that using a GPL-licensed work would force me to make my code GPL instead of commercial or BSD. That's enough to make me avoid it. The idea of not having the right to decide the license by myself is the line to me.
Maybe that I'm wrong and I haven't understood it correctly (most probably so as @lemur2 gave an example of commercial product built "on top of" GPL work) but when I get to start my own company, I'll research it thoroughly.

Reply Score: 2

dnebdal Member since:
2008-08-27

Just remember that you can safely link to LGPL libraries, and safely use GPL-licensed tools (e.g. gcc) - no need to limit yourself unnecessarily.

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Either way, I think the guy's purpose for saying that was to fire everyone up.


Possibly so. As you note, the poster didn't give any reason at all as to exactly why in his or her opinion one should avoid the GPL.

The very best way to point this out to casual readers, without calling anyone a liar or astroturfer, is to simply ask for that unstated reason.

If the original poster cannot come up with a reason, most readers are savvy enough to work out for themselves that the emporer had no clothes, and that it is absolutely fine to use GPL software.

IMO. Caveat: flamewars have started up before where I thought I had taken a sane approach. Not everyone follows civil rules of discourse.

Edited 2011-01-09 12:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2

vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Or maybe he's a proprietary software developer, getting paid to herd his users like sheep, withholding the source from them and forcing paid upgrades at his own will. Either way, I think the guy's purpose for saying that was to fire everyone up.

I wanted to react to this because I'm seriously considering starting a small development studio (even maybe with just myself) in a year or less. I don't see how I can sustain my studio by making open source (and thus free) software. If you have an answer, I'd be more than willing to know.

According to what I quoted above, you seem to think that all proprietary software is wrong... Is developing software your activity? or you're just of those people who consume software without wondering how it's been done? If all software is open source, how do I live? Or do you think I should remain an employee all my life and spend all of my evenings and week-ends working on free software that others will enjoy while living a fuller life?


It's clear he just has blind hatred toward the GPL and likes sitting in Apple's wallet, doing everything *their* way...

Reading that when the guy wrote "Oh well, doesn't affect me--I will never own one of their stupid iGadgets." also felt weird and makes me wonder where the hate really is.

Reply Score: 2

sean Member since:
2005-06-29

"This mess doesn't affect me either, I avoid GPL'ed software like plague unless they're absolutely necessary.


If you write your own code, it is your code, so you may do with that whatever you wish.

If you don't write code, GPL software won't bite you, you know. You are absolutely free to run it without restriction. Fill your boots. Have a ball.

If you want to use someone else's GPL code in conjunction with your work, keep it separated from your work. Do not include any GPL source code actually within your work, but rather write your own code to run "on top of" GPL code. Here is an example of a company with a proprietary product which has done just that:
http://www.bricsys.com/common/news.jsp?ksearch=Linux

If you want to re-distribute someone else's GPL code, then simply re-distribute their source code as well. Its their code anyway, no skin of your nose to re-distribute it even as source code.

You do not have to distribute source code for your work, if you do not want to, if it was actually your work.

So, please explain, what exactly is your reason for avoiding GPL code? I'm peplexed, I truly am.
"

I also avoid GPL software when I can. As a developer that uses a more liberal license (BSD in my case but MIT license would also do), I avoid it, for one reason, because the philosophy behind the license is exclusive. If you go to FSF's website, you will see a list of licenses that are or are not compatible with GNU licenses. You will notice that it does not phrase it as what GNU licenses are compatible with. Yes, it is a small difference, but it demonstrates an attitude against others. For a comparison, consider how software packages mention compatibility. They say they will work on an OS; they do not say an OS is compatible with them.

If I write BSD-licensed software and link it against GPL-licensed software, I have to redistribute it under the GPL license according to the FSF. The MPL or CDDL do not have this issue as long as I keep the code apart in separate files. Although they are friendlier licenses, I still prefer BSD/MIT licenses since they are closer to altruistic sharing than the others. If I shared something with somebody, I would not view it as nice to require anything back in return.

This post is not intended as flamebait, but I could not help seeing a similarity between Digital Rights Management (DRM) and GNU licenses. Both try to control the usage (development in my eyes is a type of usage). The phrase "Source Rights Management" (SRM) had actually popped into my head.

BTW, as for Apple, I did not see them being at fault in this case. While I may be very wary of their control over their devices, they did not attempt to distribute anything. Someone else tried to distribute VLC over Apple's system against the terms of the GPL; if someone is to be sued, that is the person who should be sued for placing the binary in a place it could not be redistributed. Of course, the source availability of the binary did comply with the terms of the GPL; this was just about the binary.

Reply Score: 3

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

They say they will work on an OS; they do not say an OS is compatible with them.

Are you sure?

Windows Vista Compatibility Center:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/windows-vista/

Windows 7 Compatibility Center:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/windows-7/en-us/defa...

As for the specs included with individual software, obviously no one is going to waste their time listing hundreds of 100% irrelevant operating systems. It would be a waste of their time and leave the user wondering, "well what the f*** is this POS compatible with, then?" without even bothering to read all that garbage.

Basically, that's a poor comparison; there are obvious reasons why you don't list operating systems that are *not* compatible, starting with the fact that it would be a completely useless piece of information to go by (and seemingly never-ending with all the different choices out there).

There's a reason why proprietary Linux software doesn't list 125-150 of the 300+ distributions out there, and instead choose to mention general specifications such as "Linux 2.6 kernel, glibc x.x.x and up; OpenGL hardware acceleration; OSS or Alsa, etc.," or even something more general like "Most major Linux distributions from around 2007" or whatever.

It sounds like you're complaining about nothing more than language--and in this case I honestly see nothing to complain about to begin with. I don't see any negativity; just facts, on the page you referred to.

Edited 2011-01-10 04:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I also avoid GPL software when I can. As a developer that uses a more liberal license (BSD in my case but MIT license would also do), I avoid it, for one reason, because the philosophy behind the license is exclusive. If you go to FSF's website, you will see a list of licenses that are or are not compatible with GNU licenses. You will notice that it does not phrase it as what GNU licenses are compatible with. Yes, it is a small difference, but it demonstrates an attitude against others. For a comparison, consider how software packages mention compatibility. They say they will work on an OS; they do not say an OS is compatible with them.

If I write BSD-licensed software and link it against GPL-licensed software, I have to redistribute it under the GPL license according to the FSF. The MPL or CDDL do not have this issue as long as I keep the code apart in separate files. Although they are friendlier licenses, I still prefer BSD/MIT licenses since they are closer to altruistic sharing than the others. If I shared something with somebody, I would not view it as nice to require anything back in return.


If I wrote code that I wanted everyone to share, I would not view it as nice if someone took a copy of my code and refused to share it. This can happen to my code if I license it as BSD/MIT. The GPL simply adds a stipulation beyond BSD/MIT that in effect says: "I shared this with you, you may use it however you like but if you give it to others you must share it with them just as I have shared it with you".

Sorry, but I simply can't agree with any argument that wishes to characterise that position as unreasonable in any way or failing somehow as not being "altruistic sharing".

As for your comments re linking:

LGPL is absolutely safe, as it specifically allows linking (even static linking). Most libraries are LGPL, not GPL.

Despite what the FSF say, copyright law itself allows dynamic linking ... if a later work does not actually INCLUDE any major elements of earlier works, then it does not infringe copyright law.

See:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink?456652

Edited 2011-01-10 06:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2

vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30


If I wrote code that I wanted everyone to share, I would not view it as nice if someone took a copy of my code and refused to share it. This can happen to my code if I license it as BSD/MIT. The GPL simply adds a stipulation beyond BSD/MIT that in effect says: "I shared this with you, you may use it however you like but if you give it to others you must share it with them just as I have shared it with you".

I don't know how many times I have been schooled by you here but I wish there'll be many more.

On topic (and on quote so to speak), the reason that some avoid GPL (and I've written it in a previous comment) is a wording/understanding problem. Read a BSD license, you immediately know you can use it in any way you please. I'm very Java these last years so I also know the Apache license is similar in that respect. With GPL, until I read your explanations in several comments, I could not have told someone: "yes you can use GPL even in a proprietary closed-source commercial product, you just have to link to it instead of embedding it in your source code". And honestly, for those who are not native English speakers (like me), it's not that easy to understand. And sections like "Linking and derived works" of the Wikipedia article don't help in clarifying what can and cannot be done. Even your "LGPL is absolutely safe, as it specifically allows linking (even static linking). Most libraries are LGPL, not GPL." doesn't tell explicitly whether I can use or statically/dynamically link to GPL-licensed code. So in case my commercial product uses a library that, unfortunately, happens to be GPL instead of LGPL, what should I do, point the users to where they can download the library and its source code should they wish to?

Last point, I think no one is safe from bona fide errors and from some lazy-sloppy-doesn't-care-should-be-fired-rightaway developer. This is a risk I'm not sure I'd be willing to take were I to have a company like I hope.

P.S. can you explain how multi-licensing works with GPL?

Reply Score: 2

spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23


On topic (and on quote so to speak), the reason that some avoid GPL (and I've written it in a previous comment) is a wording/understanding problem. Read a BSD license, you immediately know you can use it in any way you please. I'm very Java these last years so I also know the Apache license is similar in that respect. With GPL, until I read your explanations in several comments, I could not have told someone: "yes you can use GPL even in a proprietary closed-source commercial product, you just have to link to it instead of embedding it in your source code". And honestly, for those who are not native English speakers (like me), it's not that easy to understand.

The GPL has unofficial translations there:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/translations.html
I believe linking GPL software in non compatible licensed software is not wise. Whether lemur2 is right or wrong about the legal matter (I think he is wrong), the spirit about the GPL tells that you can't link it in proprietary software (that's what the FSF says)
Linking with LGPL is safe however.
Anyway, if you are unsure, hire a lawyer. Whether you use the GPL or the BSD or whatever license, it is a good idea to ask a lawyer to review it and be sure you are able to comply. These days writing software is more dangerous than ever before.

Last point, I think no one is safe from bona fide errors and from some lazy-sloppy-doesn't-care-should-be-fired-rightaway developer. This is a risk I'm not sure I'd be willing to take were I to have a company like I hope.
You have to review any software you distribute with a lawyer if you don't want to take any risk.

P.S. can you explain how multi-licensing works with GPL?

If you write the code, you own it forever. You can license it under any license and multiple licenses forever. You can add new licenses afterward. The only problem is with code you didn't write. If the author license it under the GPL then there is no multi-licensing. It's GPL forever and there is nothing you can do about it, except asking the author to relicense his work.

Reply Score: 3

vtolkov Member since:
2006-07-26

Absolutely agree. I like the "SRM" analogy. Exactly!

Another thing, that BSD license only require you to respect the author. And you can do whatever you want with this code, but you have to respect the author by mentioning his name. Like if you cite someone in your publication, you need to give a reference. But GPL is opposite, it values code as the only value, not its authors, there are no names, there is only code and when this code touches another code it also becomes GPLed. Kind of "bite of GPL". I also avoid GPL as a developer, because I consider this non-ethical and antihuman.

Reply Score: 0

VZsolt Member since:
2008-10-31

It was not meant to be a flamebait, but my opinion.

Yes, I'm a proprietary software developer, herding my users as shee...
Wait what? How are these related? You should enlighten me about that.

I don't use GPL'ed software because I find the GPL license and the associated fanatic movement repulsive. It's a personal issue. I like BSD and other, simple licenses more, not so I could steal software under them, but because I feel better. (I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one on this side.) Though using them in proprietary projects don't hurt either. At least I can do so.

Sidenote: Not to mention that I'm not always comfortable with the quality of "fix it yourself" applications or libraries. (But I know others who won't touch anything open sourced at all for the same reason. I'm more liberal than that, I'd look it up and test it first).

In this very case with VLC, it was inferior to OPlayer (HD). Thus for me, nothing of value was lost. I don't mind paying its price to the developer, and most certainly I won't make a fuss over its source code.

I'm not buying a religion or a philosophy, I'm not supporting a brand or an evil tyranny and the brainwashing of the mass, and I don't want to buy myself homework. I'm just buying a device and an app that lets me watch videos easily. What's so wrong with that?

Edited 2011-01-10 13:58 UTC

Reply Score: 1

spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23


I'm not buying a religion or a philosophy

Yes you are (buying a philosophy). You are just not buying free software philosophy but from your post I can see you are buying a philosophy.
I don't use GPL'ed software because I find the GPL license and the associated fanatic movement repulsive.

You are totally buying a religion/philosophy: the one that says the viral license is evil.
In this very case with VLC, it was inferior to OPlayer (HD). Thus for me, nothing of value was lost. I don't mind paying its price to the developer, and most certainly I won't make a fuss over its source code.
Free/open source/proprietary software is not about price. If you don't mind and can afford it you should donate to the free software projects you use that accept donations. This is your best interest to do so.

What you are saying is wrong. You said you are not buying a philosophy but that you hate free software but that non-free open source and proprietary software are ok, without context and that is a philosophy.

If you really don't want to go into philosophy or politics your should just use software based on what you need and are allowed to use depending on the license and not based on your own philosophy/politics.

Reply Score: 4

VZsolt Member since:
2008-10-31

Yes you are (buying a philosophy). You are just not buying free software philosophy but from your post I can see you are buying a philosophy.


Am I so wrong that I don't see a relation here?

Reply Score: 1

spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

"Yes you are (buying a philosophy). You are just not buying free software philosophy but from your post I can see you are buying a philosophy.


Am I so wrong that I don't see a relation here?
"
You said that you don't buy a philosophy and that you avoid any free software. In other words, you buy software because they are not free. If software A is free and software B is not free, you will buy B because you don't like the philosophy behind software A, or we can say because you like the philosophy behind B better.
If you buy a software because you like the philosophy behind it better they you are actually buying philosophy. You just bought B because it was not free software, you bought the philosophy that "free software is evil". That is another philosophy/religion, just as bad as "proprietary software is evil".

Edited 2011-01-10 14:48 UTC

Reply Score: 2

VZsolt Member since:
2008-10-31

Touché, you're right.

Though (just to color the picture a little), I consider quality first, pricing/license second.

Reply Score: 1

Please Explain
by John Blink on Sun 9th Jan 2011 01:54 UTC
John Blink
Member since:
2005-10-11

I read the article, can someone explain in simple point form what happened?

Also am I legally allowed to continue to use Applidium's VLC on my phone?

Please ignore what I write below, no need to answer it. Just a rant. But please answer my question above, I would liked to understand what has happened here.

------------------

I am "the people" who likes to use free software, and I am at a disadvantage here.

Also my rant below is created from my lack of knowledge on the GPL / Apple ToS matter,

quote "...the free-software General Public License (GPL) clashes with the Apple App Store's Terms of Service (ToS), didn't mean that Apple would actually pull down GPLed apps. Well Apple just did"

Yes of course the evil corp. pulled the app not a developer. Thus we conclude Apple doesn't like GPL.

Also who cares what apple's ToS says?! I have seen GPL'd applications in most versions of Windows! and OSX. Quick remove them! Lets not enhance the peoples user experience with our free apps, but lets keep them for ourselves, but yeah they're "free"!!!

It is free, give it to me. Keeping the program away from me would break GPL, would it not? (again I have no idea what the GPL says).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Please Explain
by JAlexoid on Sun 9th Jan 2011 06:40 UTC in reply to "Please Explain"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I read the article, can someone explain in simple point form what happened?


Some legalese licensing confusion happened and based on a lot of points Apple decided not to get mired in a GPL dispute. Apple just washed their hands of the whole thing and they did right.

Also am I legally allowed to continue to use Applidium's VLC on my phone?


Yau are allowed, it's further distribution through AppStore that is not.

Also who cares what apple's ToS says?! I have seen GPL'd applications in most versions of Windows! and OSX. Quick remove them! Lets not enhance the peoples user experience with our free apps, but lets keep them for ourselves, but yeah they're "free"!!!


Apple's iDevices and AppStore ToS has additional requirements and places additional constraints. Wondows and MacOSX do not. Simple as that. You can get VLC app for Windows or MacOSX by any means you like: download it from their web site, your friend can burn it onto a CD or give it on a Flash drive. In iOS the only way you, a user, can get an app is through AppStore(without jailbreaking).

Reply Score: 4

RE: Please Explain
by Drumhellar on Sun 9th Jan 2011 07:03 UTC in reply to "Please Explain"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

It's incredibly easy to find the GPL, and that is probably something you should do before ranting about it.

Here is a link to GPL v2, which is what VLC is released under:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html

Read it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Please Explain
by mintar on Sun 9th Jan 2011 10:10 UTC in reply to "Please Explain"
mintar Member since:
2008-09-26

Also who cares what apple's ToS says?! I have seen GPL'd applications in most versions of Windows! and OSX. Quick remove them! Lets not enhance the peoples user experience with our free apps, but lets keep them for ourselves, but yeah they're "free"!!!


The difference between Windows/OSX and iOS is this: Under Windows, you have the freedom to modify and run any GPL'd program, and you can even redistribute it as you like (provided you also share the code). Under iOS, you can not: you need Apple's approval to do that. So this is a freedom that is taken away from you by Apple on purpose, and this clashes with the GPL.

It's not the case that Apple's TOS were somehow god-given, and that the GPL was intentionally designed to shut Apple out. On the contrary, the GPL was designed to stop people from ripping the developers off, and Apple chose their TOS in full knowledge that they are not compatible with the GPL.

Some people put a lot of hard work into VLC without being paid. They only did it on the condition that the result of their work is also distributed freely, because they don't want to get ripped off. The code is still theirs, and if you want to use or redistribute it, you have to respect their terms.

If you want to use free software on your device, then convince Apple to open their devices, or buy something else, like an Android phone.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Please Explain
by John Blink on Sun 9th Jan 2011 23:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Please Explain"
John Blink Member since:
2005-10-11

Apple chose their TOS in full knowledge that they are not compatible with the GPL.

Some people put a lot of hard work into VLC without being paid. They only did it on the condition that the result of their work is also distributed freely, because they don't want to get ripped off. The code is still theirs, and if you want to use or redistribute it, you have to respect their terms.

If you want to use free software on your device, then convince Apple to open their devices, or buy something else, like an Android phone.


I would like it if the developers distribute VLC freely.

Can anyone answer what the terms are that isn't being met?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Please Explain
by John Blink on Mon 10th Jan 2011 02:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Please Explain"
John Blink Member since:
2005-10-11

Okay forget that last question.

I am reading the linked item here,

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?456647

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Please Explain
by phoudoin on Mon 10th Jan 2011 11:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Please Explain"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

If you want to use free software on your device, then convince Apple to open their devices, or buy something else, like an Android phone.


Or jailbreak your Apple device(s) and do what you're untitled to be allowed to do with your own properties... running and redistributing GPL software included.

Meanwhile, true, putting his money where is his mouth works better on the long term. It could even convince Apple to be more open-friendly. On the long term. On short, noway ;-)

Reply Score: 2

v GPL2 sucks
by vtolkov on Sun 9th Jan 2011 04:07 UTC
RE: GPL2 sucks
by phreck on Mon 10th Jan 2011 10:44 UTC in reply to "GPL2 sucks"
phreck Member since:
2009-08-13

How competent of you to report bugs in an edit-comment ... <°((()))<<

Reply Score: 1

Comment by kfet
by kfet on Sun 9th Jan 2011 11:35 UTC
kfet
Member since:
2005-07-06

This is really a huge pile of FUD.

Apple's TOS are not agains sharing code in any way, what one of the lead VLC developers complained about was imposed DRM on the end users. So, Apple changed it's ToS, and still this guy sends them a copyright infrigment notification, instead of sending it to Applidium. So Apple takes it down, of course.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by kfet
by kfet on Sun 9th Jan 2011 11:38 UTC
kfet
Member since:
2005-07-06

This is from another VLC developer, not a layer but still worth reading: VLC on iOS and legal analysis http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-November/07745...

Reply Score: 2

FellowConspirator
Member since:
2007-12-13

Apple did not pull the app because of the GPL. Apple pulled the app because there was disagreement among the developers whether they wanted to release it. The majority did, and it was released. The dissenter contacted Apple and said that there was a license violation and that he, a developer of the app, didn't authorize it's release and would sue if it remained in the App Store.

Why would a company risk having to lawyer up over a free app because of some internal spat between developers? They did the only sensible thing - they tossed it.

Reply Score: 0

Much ado about nothing
by wocowboy on Mon 10th Jan 2011 11:52 UTC
wocowboy
Member since:
2006-06-01

And in the end all this kerfuffle means absolutely nothing to 99.98% of iOS users in the end, who have several other means of playing VLC-capable content on our devices. We will let the supposedly "free software" people continue their intramural battle that shows quite clearly that their software is not "free" in any way, shape, or form in the end, based on the very fact the battle is taking place. They may say their software/code is free, but there are so many restrictions on its use and distribution that in reality there are MANY costs to using it. And I, like all the rest of the iOS universe, say "who cares" and happily find another $.99 way of playing our content on our devices.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Much ado about nothing
by vodoomoth on Mon 10th Jan 2011 15:52 UTC in reply to "Much ado about nothing"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

They may say their software/code is free, but there are so many restrictions on its use and distribution that in reality there are MANY costs to using it.


Sorry but this is just disingenuous. The software is indeed free as well as its source code: someone posted a link to it earlier. Yes, there are restrictions, just like in any other product or license: even BSD prevents you from claiming ownership of other people's work and suing everyone for using that work i.e. for doing exactly what you are doing yourself. Your iPhone comes with restrictions too; I guess that's why jailbreaking exists in the first place.

If I owned that phone and desperately wanted that vlc app, all I would have to do is click the link, download the app and install it. Where are the costs you refer to?

Reply Score: 3

OT - a question on the iOS developer licence
by pica on Mon 10th Jan 2011 15:37 UTC
pica
Member since:
2005-07-10

According to http://developer.apple.com/programs/ios/distribute.html
under "Compare iOS Developer Programs" you can get "Registered as an Apple Developer" for free. If you do that you can download the IDE and start coding. I have been told, you may also test your own application in an emulator which is part of the IDE. But you are not allowed to "Test on iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch".

If my intention is to devolop an application to run on a Mac, why should I develop it to run on an iOS emulator?

So, my question simply is, what that licence good for?

pica

Reply Score: 1

10.7 or 10.8???
by amadensor on Mon 10th Jan 2011 15:39 UTC
amadensor
Member since:
2006-04-10

Will it be 10.7 or 10.8 when the only way to install software will be the app store? When will they refuse to allow any software not from the app store, like the iPad?

Reply Score: 1

OT - a question on the iOS developer licence
by pica on Mon 10th Jan 2011 15:57 UTC
pica
Member since:
2005-07-10

According to http://developer.apple.com/programs/ios/distribute.html
under "Compare iOS Developer Programs" you can get "Registered as an Apple Developer" for free. If you do that you can download the IDE and start coding. I have been told, you may also test your own application in an emulator which is part of the IDE. But you are not allowed to "Test on iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch".

If my intention is to devolop an application to run on a Mac, why should I develop it to run on an iOS emulator?

So, my question simply is, what that licence good for?

pica

Reply Score: 1

pica Member since:
2005-07-10

Sorry, but something went wrong.

pica

Reply Score: 1