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 448122
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: No worries
by fewt on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 00:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No worries"
fewt
Member since:
2010-06-09

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.


Oh, I am embarrassing myself now am I? The only embarrassment here is you Thom. Your lack of professionalism, and your inability to admit when you are wrong is pathetic. You clearly lack any understanding of the GPL v2, as evidenced by your inability to respond to even one of my replies to your nonsense with any facts to support your argument. Like the comment just now about how evil Apple is restricting your rights, no where in the GPL v2 does it state that you have unlimited rights, you only have the rights as defined in the GNU GPL v2 which is why it was necessary to create the GPL v3. You just keep making the same claim over and over though like a broken record somehow expecting a different result.

To quote Albert Einstein; "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. "

Resorting to personal attacks as you have now done just makes you look even more a fool. I left OSNews years ago because the leading writer at the time was bat-shit crazy. I guess nothing has changed, and it is still more important for OSNews to get hits than it is to be credible.

Educate yourself: http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html

Edited 2010-11-02 01:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -2

RE[5]: No worries
by apoclypse on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 01:29 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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: No worries
by Valhalla on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 01:44 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?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: No worries
by TechGeek on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 02:31 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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: No worries
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 10:54 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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: No worries
by Valhalla on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 01:39 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.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: No worries
by fewt on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 11:34 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

Reply Parent Score: 1