VLC Developer Takes a Stand Against DRM Enforcement
apple.slashdot.org
apple.slashdot.org
Thanks for taking a stand, but isn't it a given that apple owns and controls the app store. If one doesn't like the rules, don't buy apple and don't make apps for their store. Simple no?
One VLC developer says that it is fine under the current TOS to distribute VLC on the App Store: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1850340
This sounds like a giant mess of FUD and clever trolling. The FSF is complaining about something that both Apple and VideoLAN had no part of, but that's who they can point fingers at. Why isn't anyone complaining about Applidium, who were the ones that coerced VLC into the app store, which effectively "changed the licensing terms" of a project who's licence says that it cannot be re-licensed?
edit: the above paragraph is referring to the mess that the FSF article is claiming to be an issue, not the fact that VLC's licence can comply with the terms of the app store.
In all reality, Apple wants every piece of quality[1] software on the planet to be distributed through their store, even if it is free and can be obtained elsewhere. The GPL/FSF guys seem to be more restrictive about where their software can and cannot be released than Apple is restrictive on what kind of software can be included in their store at this point. It is making everyone look bad. Can't we just get along?
[1] Ambiguous term, I know.
The developers of VLC for the iPhone, Applidium, took a risk with this app.
Interestingly that risk initially was Apple not approving the application.
But now that risk has actually become their fellow VLC developers turning against them and filing copyright infringements with Apple to get the app removed from the store.
Nobody wins. Sad.
If you don't like Apple's dystopian future, then reducing the incentives to own an iOS device sounds more effective than merely not subsidizing the platform.
You know, I actually wonder how that application of the GPL would stand up in court. The courts have sided with hardware hackers about Jailbreaking. Would they necessarily accept that a license term would enforce the end of distribution of software just because an individual's hardware wouldn't load someone else's copy of the software?
'''The approved commitments address these concerns. PC users, by means of the Choice Screen, will have an effective and unbiased choice between Internet Explorer and competing web browsers. This should ensure competition on the merits and allow consumers to benefit from technical developments and innovation both on the web browser market and on related markets, such as web-based applications.'''
This was the accepted proposal of Microsoft by the European Commission in December 2009. (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/0...)
Apple with the AppStore is just playing the same game than any other monopole, trying to exclude competitive products.