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.
Thread beginning with comment 456635
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent 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 Parent 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 Parent Score: 3

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 Parent Score: 3

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 Parent Score: 1