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.
Thread beginning with comment 448047
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: No violation
by vivainio on Mon 1st Nov 2010 21:12 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.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: No violation
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 1st Nov 2010 21:19 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.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: No violation
by fewt on Mon 1st Nov 2010 21:15 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.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: No violation
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 1st Nov 2010 21:26 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.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: No violation
by polaris20 on Mon 1st Nov 2010 22:09 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?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: No violation
by Valhalla on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 00:16 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

Reply Parent Score: 2