VLC for iOS Pulled from the App Store
planet.videolan.org
planet.videolan.org
I've written the most important analysis on the matter http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Novembe... and http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Decembe...
Some VLC developers (for Mac mainly), with the company Applidium, have ported VLC on iOS. Applidium published it on the store, for free.
Some developer complained (quite lately, btw...) afterwards and quoted a FSF analysis. Their analysis was totally wrong (spoke about redistribution), and based on old version of AppStore terms.
After my remarks about changes of the AppStore terms that made this analysis obsolete and wrong, they shifted their criticism onto another part, which was the "usage" part of the ToS. They complained that the terms did not allow all uses, especially commercial ones.
Indeed, one part could be interpreted in different ways. Therefore, I've mailed Apple Copyright Agent for explanation, twice. Once in November, once in December...
Apple has refused to answer, to explain or to help in any matter. They then decided to pull the Application unilaterally from the AppStore.
Of course, they are allowed to do that, and noone can complain, but this is yet another push from Apple against VLC, that adds to the very long list of past issues. It just makes me think Apple doesn't really want competition...
Hopefully, I'll be able to calm everyone down and put it back on the AppStore...
Instead, Apple was told that the app had a copyright problem, and it took them 2 months to take it down. Yes, it's slow, but no, they are not evil in doing so.
Talk about giving power to the trolls.
Hey! Angry Birds stole my intellectual property.
http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc/2011-January/01979...
Where you say:
"No. Apple decided to remove VLC from the AppStore by themselves."
You are either blatantly lying or you have no idea what actually happened.
Apple responded to a copyright infringement notification like they always do: they removed the app from sale.
This is the direct action of your colleague in the VLC project, Rémi Denis-Courmont.
Stop blaming Apple for removing the app. YOU GUYS, the VLC project, are the ones who are playing this game.
Then, the removal was done by Apple, and not by Applidium nor anyone else.
A complaint was filled by a copyright holder of some code on VLC. He represent himself and has the right to complain. It doesn't mean that his complaint is right, like any complaint.
But, the problem is that Apple has refused to explain the term of service and to help us finding a solution, and after being mute for more than 2,5 month, remove it without warning nor explanation.
So, yes, "Apple decided to remove VLC from the AppStore by themselves", even if you don't like it.
This stuff is all public...it makes no sense, honestly.
Kind of weird to blame Apple for following up to a copyright violation.
It is now between VLC and Applidium to figure out how to proceed.
Apple is not part of this. Developers need to play within the bounds of the App Store license terms.
A VLC developer complained to Apple about a copyright violation in October.
Apple pulled it unilaterally yesterday, after more than 2 months of silence, after refusing to help people, notably me, to solve the matter. So, Apple is definitively "part of this".
Not to mention that you are speaking about "VLC" which doesn't mean anything, since it isn't a legal entity.
And to finish "AppStore license terms" change all the time... So it is hard to "play within the bounds".
Of course they did. It took them two months to process the complaint after one of the VideoLAN developers made it, but they followed through on an action that "a VLC developer" initiated.
With respect, if a developer representing VideoLAN complains to Apple, and another developer representing VideoLAN and claiming to be in charge approaches and tries to "work it out", Apple is not going to step into what appears to be an internal dispute. I am never an Apple apologist as I think they're a bit heavy-handed with the App Store, but in this case, how would you expect them to act?
This is what "a VLC developer" wanted, and he got it. I don't think Apple is the bad guy here in the slightest. I hope you're not trying to shift blame from the developer who initiated this to an easy target, Apple, because your original comment in this thread would make it appear that way.
No, here, the dispute was from one copyright holder against the distributor, Apple.
> how would you expect them to act?
Very simply, by answering to the mails asking for clarifications on the ToS, so a solution could have come up.
Yeah, but unfortunately one of your team members, Rémi Denis-Courmont, had already used the nuclear option: informing Apple about a copyright infringement and asking them to remove the app from the store. So that is what Apple did.
The problem is that you guys are not working as a team. One person, Remi, is extremely bitter about this app being on the store (see the wording of his messages and that last blog post) and basically wants it to disappear forever.
I do not see any signals that Remi is approaching this the same way as you. You seem to want to resolve this, he just wants the app to be gone and never appear again.
You keep saying that there is no such thing as 'VLC the legal entity'. And that is probably how it looks from Apple's perspective: one guy requests the app to be removed, some other random person is trying to fix things.
In other words: you guys messed this up by not being a coherent team. Remi should have NEVER EVER sent that message. You guys should have come to agreement and worked with Apple as a team.
Fixing this is probably possible, but it requires cooperation from Rémi Denis-Courmont. You guys (here I say it again) will probably have to send a more formal letter to Apple to retract the initial complaint and then see if you can work together to fix this or to be more lenient and to simply say: we know this situation is not ideal, but thinking of millions of users who are using our software, we are going to let this happen anyway to see if we things can change in the longer term.
See it like that if you want. But the fact is that in project without copyright assignment, anyone can make things go haywire...
To close the matter, because this takes ridiculously too much of my time: Rémi sent a message 2,5 months ago; Apple refused to answer my questions to solve the matter in the meantime; and then Apple removed the application without telling anyone in before.
Turn it in away way you want, I still don't find Apple's way a correct (nor polite) way, and I don't care if they get bad PR for that.
In the end, people getting screwed up are the users...
Thank you for that insight. I just wish you guys had thought of that before filing copyright infringements.
I've explained to you many times, that "You guys" doesn't mean anything and that one developer did complain alone. And that noone can control all developers in a non-copyright assignment project...
Your attitude is really annoying, and very aggressive around the whole thread...
Apple is absolutely part of this. Apple is the party that has released a platform that you cannot install software on without going through them for permission (unless you jailbreak it using a remote-root vulnerability which is patched in more recent releases). Apple is the party that decides what can be in its app store under what rules; and it has decided to use a set of rules that are incompatible with the GPL. Apple has thus chosen to limit the software that is installable on their platform.
Apple could choose to allow VLC; they have the choice of making their terms compatible with the GPL (it's not that hard; just don't impose any additional restrictions on top of the ones that the GPL already imposes, and let the authors handle the rest of the GPL's requirements), or enabling people to side-load apps outside of the App store. Google does both on Android; the market terms are compatible with the GPL, and they allow side-loading (and even rooting on some phones).
However Apple chooses not to do this. Thus, Apple is limiting the set of software that can be used on their phone. If you use an iPhone (or iPad, or iPod Touch), you should be aware of this; you may not ever be able to get some software on it without cracking your phone's security, and Apple may be arbitrary and capricious in what they choose to allow and disallow. Apple may also remotely disable and uninstall software or content that is on your phone. If you want to choose what to install on your own phone, you should either buy a phone that gives you more freedom, or jailbreak your phone and then install whatever you want.
I'm actually serious about all the above points.
Citation please.
It is funny how Jean-Baptiste Kempf keeps telling us here that there is no 'VLC legal entity' but at the same time Rémi sends out messages like the above in a press release style as if they are officially coming from the 'VLC Group'.
Anyway, Apple was contacted because of a copyright infringement. As anyone who has experience with the App Store knows, their action is then to simply pull the app, inform the developer (which is Applidium in this case and NOT VLC) and then leave the matter in the hands of those parties.
As far as Apple is concerned this matter is over. Until Applidium contacts them (because they are the ones having a contract with Apple) with a good reason to allow the app back in the store.
Too often, their position can be summarised as 'my way, or the highway'.
--
Apple is not part of this. Developers need to play within the bounds of the App Store license terms
No - Apple needs to be accountable to an impartial regulatory body.
Well, it is their platform and their store. If you think the rules are unfair then you can also develop for other platforms.
First, Apple had ZERO problems with approving VLC and getting it on the store. The app is gone now, but that is not because Apple changed their position, they simply responded to an alledged copyright/license issue reported by the original owner of the code.
The reason that the app has been removed is because the VLC developers, specifially Rémi Denis-Courmont, has requested Apple to remove the app from the store because of what license conflicts.
They would respond in exactly the same way if the GPL were not involved.
Seriously, Apple is currently working in the best interest of the claimed rights holder of VLC: it removed the app so that VLC and Applidium can figure this out.
This is not a case of Apple Against GPL: As soon as Applidium and VLC think they can actually work with the terms of the GPL and App Store then they can send that message to Apple and resubsmit the app.
I sure hope they do, but from what I've seen so far, the VLC folks seem to be extremely anti-Apple. We all lose. Thanks VLC.
I often hear this rhetoric provided as the de facto reason for why Apple (and other corporations governing IP-marketplaces) should be able to do whatever they like.
If this was true - why can't a telecommunications company operate in whichever way they choose? Why do we have regulatory frameworks which address the problem of monopolies or the formation of cartels?
Because sometimes corporations aren't working in the interest of the public at large; and they need to operate within a larger framework which has been put in place for the benefit of society.
To enable them to do so effectively - traditionally, regulatory bodies are put in place to oversee good practice.
I hope the same happens to regulate these new IP-focused marketplaces.
--
[..] If you think the rules are unfair then you can also develop for other platforms.
I don't think this is necessarily true.
People (customers, developers and businesses) have to invest a great deal of time, effort and money when they choose to develop for (or make use of) a specific platform.
Switching is expensive - and eventually common sense dictates that its more likely that those who have invested, are likely to put up with rules and regulations which they might otherwise see as unfair.
Also, once a developer has produced their iOS-based product - they are forced to sell through one marketplace; the Apple AppStore - which is also cause for concern in my opinion.
It's not the same as in IP-marketplaces, or any other kind of marketplace for that matter. As long as they are not violating any law, the government should not try to regulate them, it doesn't matter how invested society is in it.
It's not the same as in IP-marketplaces, or any other kind of marketplace for that matter. As long as they are not violating any law, the government should not try to regulate them, it doesn't matter how invested society is in it.
But why? - this is an opinion, not a fact.
Apple is acting as a self-governing private regulator of a marketplace - digital technologies have allowed this situation to become viable .. in the past markets have been inherently more 'free' due to their non-digital nature.
"The world is changing; I believe that as we become more dependent on digital technologies, new legal frameworks need to be discussed and evolved."
This might be the case, and I partially agree with you. But as it stands now, Apple are not doing anything wrong.
It's complicated - I realise where the law currently stands; however, I feel that the law might need to be amended.
I believe the AppStore is a privately regulated marketplace operating within the free-market. This type of scenario is likely to become more commonplace in the future.
I can understand how the subject of the free-market (and possible government intervention) is at odds with a lot of people's politics, but I think the potential for abuse from the private sector is too great to ignore.
Although it's a very extreme example - a sweatshop is often opt-in. There are circumstances where opt-in means nothing.
No no, not "a marketplace". It is "their marketplace" and it is an "opt in" marketplace at that.
There is zero reason to invite any kind of regulation into that.
It seems quite obvious to me why this can prove to be problematic in many scenarios, but I understand why many would disagree.
They know that going in. Nobody's putting a gun to their head and forcing them to write iOS apps. If they finish their app and only then figure this out, they're too stupid to be writing software.
It's a risk. But then, there's also a risk that someone else will put out a better equivalent app first and win all the mindshare. Or that many different equivalent apps will ship first, and their app will have a hard time getting noticed.
I think that this situation is less than desirable. Apple (and corporations in general) shouldn't be able to artificially influence how a (sub)market functions.
If this is accepted, I think the only logical way to stop these situations from occurring is via legislation or regulation.
It's not an ideal solution, but then - the alternative (of doing nothing) is even less ideal in my opinion.
Yes, and I hope that is what is going to happen...
> I sure hope they do, but from what I've seen so far, the VLC folks seem to be extremely anti-Apple. We all lose. Thanks VLC.
VLC has been on the mac platform since the very early days of OSX and was for a long time the only solution to play DVDs on Mac. VLC folks are not anti-Apple...
The problem is that each copyright holder has the right to do what he wants, because developers keep their authorship rights...
That is a ridiculous assumption.
Other industries (telecommunications for example) have regulatory bodies which oversee good practice.
I don't see why it's ridiculous to imagine a regulatory body overseeing good practice for privately created IP-focused marketplaces.
Apple is not a monopoly. It has a monopoly over those who choose to be its customers and those who choose to be its developers, but that is no different than saying that Levis has a monopoly over the black jeans that Steve Jobs wears.
Things become different when someone can show that Apple has a monopoly position over an entire market, or that Apple's product or service is an essential product or service.
For example, although there is plenty of competition amongst landlords for apartments, most jurisdictions have specific laws that limit the enforceable provisions of a lease.
At this moment in time, I don't personally see Apple enjoying a monopoly position in its market, not do I see video player applications as an essential good or service.
I agree, regulation has traditionally been put in place to deal with the creation of monopolies.
Personally - I think the question of whether Apple's AppStore constitutes a monopoly is a grey area. They are the only company authorised to sell applications developed for iOS. Supporters of Apple's current policy would argue that other application platforms are available.
To this, I would offer the counter-argument that prior investment (time/money/effort) encourages developers and customers to stick with (and put up with) most rules Apple decides to enforce. Choice is (theoretically) available, but many developers and users will be placed in a situation where there they aren't.
--
These IP-marketplaces are new - and, as with most things that are digitally-based, a great deal of power is available to whoever is in charge. More power, provides more scope for abuse.
I think that some kind of regulation - either through new legislation or a regulatory body needs to be provided.
--
Lastly - as Apple isn't providing a free-market to those who sell through it's AppStore, isn't it a little ironic that a desire for free-market economics is provided as a reason against regulation?
Not even close to a grey area unless you want to argue that Nike has a monopoly on athletic shoes that have the Nike 'swoosh.'
To this, I would offer the counter-argument that prior investment (time/money/effort) encourages developers and customers to stick with (and put up with) most rules Apple decides to enforce. Choice is (theoretically) available, but many developers and users will be placed in a situation where there they aren't.
How is that different from pretty much every other market where some business decides to create a product that relies on another business' product?
In what way is Nike's swoosh comparable to Apple's AppStore?
I think the situation is much more complex; we're talking about a privately regulated marketplace within the free-market.
--
How is that different from pretty much every other market where some business decides to create a product that relies on another business' product?
A single company can be in complete control of a marketplace - this isn't so possible in non-digital market without help from an organisation like the Mafia.
If you, as a developer, or user, don't like those rules, then thankfully we have superb open source operating systems, such as Linux, and OpenBSD that give you almost 100% freedom to build, sell, and use the applications of your choice.
In fact, if you have a jail-broken IOS device, then you can even purchase apps for those devices from places other than Apple's curated store.
The Droid, RIM, and WP7 platforms also provide varying degrees of freedom.
If, in fact, Apple had a defacto monopoly, then their behavior might come under some form of legislative oversight - but, they certainly don't have a Monopoly on the mobile computing platform, and we really don't need some external body providing regulatory oversight as to what/how Apple should approve applications landing in the store.
There is a huge difference between a digital and non-digital market. In a digital market - one company can control (or curate) everything that occurs. This kind of control has only been made possible by digital technology.
--
"If you wanted to go sell products in Costco, or Walmart, you would have to play by their rules."
Costco or Walmart purchase products which they later resell. The AppStore provides an economic space where people can sell direct to the consumer. There's a distinction.
If I produce a product that can be sold in Costco or Walmart - and I don't like their policies, I can take my product and sell it elsewhere.
If I produce a product for sale via the AppStore, and I don't like their policies I have to redevelop my product to sell it via a different marketplace.
--
"If you, as a developer, or user, don't like those rules, then thankfully we have superb open source operating systems, such as Linux, and OpenBSD that give you almost 100% freedom to build, sell, and use the applications of your choice."
We're talking about the emerging IP-marketplaces, which are currently only viable for a handful of commercially operated platforms. The problem isn't that commerce is allowed to take place - it's that the rules of commerce can be artificially influenced by a corporation.
--
"In fact, if you have a jail-broken IOS device, then you can even purchase apps for those devices from places other than Apple's curated store."
This isn't a desirable scenario for many users, and isn't an economically viable market for many developers.
--
"The Droid, RIM, and WP7 platforms also provide varying degrees of freedom."
The problem is, there are no safeguards in place to stop these other platform vendors from artificially influencing the economic sub-markets associated with their own platforms.
A situation could quite easily develop where platform vendors unanimously agree to progress in a direction that inhibits developer (and/or user) freedoms. What happens then?
There is definitely a barrier to entry to the platform vendor market - because a huge amount of capital is needed get a business into a position where it can compete with the larger players.
--
"If, in fact, Apple had a defacto monopoly, then their behavior might come under some form of legislative oversight - but, they certainly don't have a Monopoly on the mobile computing platform, and we really don't need some external body providing regulatory oversight as to what/how Apple should approve applications landing in the store."
I think we need a body regulating the behaviour of all emerging curated IP-marketplaces. Digital commerce is very open to abuse - measures need to be put in place now while the stakes are relatively low.
Telecommunications (in the USA) used publicly-owned airwaves and in too-many cases have de facto or de jure monopolies. Neither applies to Apple.
Consider that the government concern with Microsoft in the 90s wasn't its monopoly position in "Windows," which is tautological, but PC operating systems broadly, which includes Linux and Macs.
The smartphone and tablet computer markets are among the most competitive in the country right now. By definition this means no one has a monopoly.
Deleted comment
"The relevant market consists of a 'catalogue' of goods and/or services which are considered substitutes by the customer. Such a catalogue is considered 'worth monopolising' if should only one single supplier provided it, that supplier could profitably increase its price without its customers turning away and choosing other goods and services from other suppliers."
So the question is this: if Apple were to increase its share of revenue by 5% to 10%, would developers move to Android, BlackBerry, or WP7? Absolutely. Even at the current level, there is plenty of cross-over between Android and iOS applications. In antitrust terms, the AppStore is not a market.
Thanks for the clarification - but how can you be sure that developers would move platforms?
--
I'd like to know what your definition of a market and marketplace is.
I'd define a market as a place (or economic 'space') where people sell a related class of products or services.
I'm not defining an iOS or iOS-based device as a market. I'm referring to the market for iOS applications (i.e. the AppStore).
Why is the AppStore not a marketplace?
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.
A) The ones who ported VLC and posted it on the App Store. B) The ones who complained about the terms of the App Store. C) The ones who are complaining now.
I'm sure there is some overlap, but I don't see how you can criticize members of group C who are not in group B.
First, what's an FSF analysis? And who is the developer in question? One of yours? One of Apple's? Random guy off the street?
What exactly was your application doing that Apple didn't like?
The developer is one of the VLC main contributors, but you have to understand that there is no official "VLC" company/organisation.
It's a shame one of your developers is being nasty about it, but ultimately it's a problem you guys brought on yourself. If you hadn't put a license on your thing, your thing wouldn't have any license conflicts.
In other words, I suspect that next time you start an open source project, you'll pick a different license for it (or simply not use one).
Anyway, VLC is useless without FFmpeg, which will always be at least LGPL.
My preferred license for "please do whatever you want with the software" is the MIT/X11 license.
And I didn't start VLC...
Thanks for any insight!
EDIT: This seems to cover the technical questions: http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Decembe...
I'd still be curious if you have any insight on current FSF thinking here.
I just don't agree that Apple pulled VLC because of their fear of competition. They did not remove BUZZ Player,OPlayer,yxplayer, CineXPlayer, etc.
I just think App Store is getting very big and hard to manage for Apple so they may make mistakes or they just chose the easy way, pulling the App instead of further investigating the copyright claims.
I hope you can find a solution and VLC appears again in App store soon.
Maybe they don't want the hassle of dealing with flakey politics-ridden groups who don't have their shit together.
The fact that Apple created this economic space, doesn't give it the right to behave like a feudal overlord might have behaved in the Middle Ages.
--
It's very much a case of 'who watches the watchmen'.
An independent complaints or regulatory commission needs to be established which can be used to lodge complaints about unfair action within any privately created IP-focused marketplace. I believe that laws should be introduced to ensure that Apple (and Google / Blackberry etc.) would have to subscribe to any guidelines put forth by such a body.
Apple didn't change their terms to exclude VLC or GPL. A developer (not VLC) put together the iOS version of the app, and, being fully aware of the terms of the App Store, the model of distribution, the use of DRM, and the likely incompatibilities with GPL submitted the app to Apple.
Blaming Apple for this is completely wrongheaded. It's essentially a disagreement between a VLC developer and the developer of the iOS app.
You might have a point if Apple had changed their terms after the app was submitted in order to exclude the app.
If anything, they loosened their terms to remove incompatibilities.
The iOS app developer screwed up. You should be calling for a regulatory commission to prevent developers from doing stupid things with GPL-licensed code like making business decisions that require abusing GPL.
1. They are not buying products for resale - they are providing a marketplace for other businesses to sell their own products.
2. The products that are created for the iOS AppStore cannot be sold anywhere else.
Content creators can't vote with their feet - they're tied to using Apple's system. They have to invest in very specific technologies to participate in the Apple ecosystem. This creates a situation where Apple is provided with an unwarranted amount of power.
Whether you agree with me or not - I strongly believe measures will be put in place which attempt to rectify the situation.
Content creators can't vote with their feet - they're tied to using Apple's system.
Point 1 still stands but point 2 does not since it's too restrictive to be applied to the debate.
A couple of questions;
1. Could an application developer make a living by selling their Apps via the alternative mechanisms - and would a regular (non-technical) user, be able to obtain these Apps without much effort?
2. Could Apple decide to 'outlaw' these alternatives if it chose to?
iOS and the AppStore are popular for many reasons some of which have a lot to do with the Content Creators who are publishing there. It is not however the only marketplace and Creators have other choices.
There is only one marketplace [for iOS applications] ...
2. The products that are created for the iOS AppStore cannot be sold anywhere else.
--
There are multiple commercial marketplaces available for Android - so I don't think highlighting the Apple AppStore is necessarily a needless restriction.
Apple changed App Store terms. Previously:
The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party
Now:
...unless the App Store Product is covered by a valid end user license agreement entered into between you and the licensor of the App Store Product (the "Licensor"), in which case the Licensor's end user license agreement will apply
So either GPLv2 is a valid end user license agreement, or if it isn't, one just needs some out-of-bound mechanism that users and developers agree on GPLv2.
Not for infrastructure software like operating systems, web servers, and databases (where I think it is appropriate and beneficial), but for code intended for use in end-user applications (including web applications).
I think licenses like BSD, MIT, and Apache spur more innovation in those cases. You can make the argument that companies have no incentive to contribute back to open source projects without copyleft licenses, but projects like Webkit and Rails have proven otherwise.
I hate to say it, but this is why I have a big problem with
the GPL.
My take is: GPL was created when a lot was different. The main product was source code, the main users were programmers/admins. The bulk of the source was for tools/infrastructure.
Now we have millions of users who could not care less about source code and modifying it. All they want is to get an app and use it, period. GPL does not fit well into this scenario, IMHO.
Though, perhaps the differences in innovation in the BSD kernels vs. Linux is demonstrative?
What is it about infrastructural applications that makes copyleft licenses more appropriate (and visa-versa)? That is, what makes them spur innovation in the infrastructural roles and hinder it in end-user roles?
The problem with the GPL in regards to user-facing software is that a developer using GPLed libraries is forced to publish ALL of his source code, even when he has not made any modifications to the library itself. In this situation there are no advantages for the developer (and serious disadvantages, even if you're not trying to sell the software for a profit but just want to maintain your rights to the source code), and there are also no advantages for the library project itself.
This is why, for example, the core engine of MongoDB is GPL licensed, but the MongoDB drivers are Apache licensed. If the drivers were also GPL licensed, developers would likely just choose to use one of the many alternatives with more palatable licenses.
What about web servers and databases that are sold as products? Why does that same argument not apply for them?
And, what about the users themselves? The GPL guarantees that everyone downstream (not just the next developer) gains the advantages of having the source be open. The hypothetical library project that licensed under the GPL does gain an advantage because they have access to the source for software that uses their code.
I definitely agree that MIT/BSD/Apache/etc. licenses give developers more options wrt. licensing and distribution. But, I don't see how that necessarily encourages innovation. Nor, do I see how that innovation is encouraged only in the case of end-user software vs. more infrastructural software.
I think that GPL vs. non-GPL in end-user software is just a difference in philosophy. I feel that it should be up to developers whether they want to open source their modifications or not. It seems that the majority of developers do publish and contribute back any modifications that are beneficial to the original project, but I don't think they should be forced to also publish the modifications that are only of any benefit to the modifier.
1. A developer writes an end-user application, but doesn't want to free their software. Clearly, this person isn't going to use GPL libraries.
2. A developer modifies an end-user application licensed under the GPL. If a developer makes a modification and then distributes that modification, then clearly it was of use to someone outside of that developer. The GPL guarantees that every person who uses that modified software gets the source.
But why is it good for an infrastructure product to be free, where it's bad for the end-user product?
Or, is this as simple as the fact that most free infrastructural products don't require the end-user product to be free. So, it's "appropriate and beneficial" for them to be free. But, most free libraries do require the end-user product to be free, so it's bad for the developer who may or may not want to make their product free. If I've accurately summarized, then at what point where does that "appropriate and beneficial" aspect disappear?
Either for some kind of selfish moral superiority, or in cases like this, where one person with a questionable agenda can shut down someone else's project:
"Before anyone grabs a pitchfork and/or torch and starts marching toward Cupertino, it's worth noting that VLC's removal from the App Store has nothing to do with Apple's preferences. Rather, it's a direct result of one man's misguided crusade... a man who, (perhaps) coincidentally, is an employee of Nokia, one of Apple's competitors in the mobile space."
http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-stor...
For most application code, I think the non-copyleft licenses do a great job of preserving the spirit of open source software without shackling developers to a rigid doctrine they may not fully agree with.
The copyright infringement notice is not targeted to the group that created the iOS version of VLC, and their project is not being shut down. There is nothing that prevents those people developing that application and distributing it via any channel they choose, as far as that distribution channel complies with terms of GPL.
Why is it so hard to see that it is Apple which prevents having such distribution channels?
I am amazed how these people assume all the liability, support and freedom from the FOSS developers, who work without compensation, while happily accepting all the restrictions from their vendor, who they pay dearly.
How is it that I see talk about "how much I hate GPL" and "how GPL is bad for businesses/community/users/whatsoever", when an alternative of having these pieces of software distributed with GPL license is to not have them at all? The author of the software chose the license for a purpose. Without the license, choosing of which the creator has no obligations from the users whatsoever, the users will not have the software at their disposal at all.
Instead of groups of whiny self-entitled users and lynch mobs, we need people who are willing to work against restrictions imposed by businesses, and users who see themselves as members of a community and not just as consumers of others' free work.
That said, I think non-copyleft licenses like BSD are just fine. But at the end, it is the authors' privilege to choose whichever license they find suitable.
In short its not the GPL thats broken here, its the closed nature of the system in question (iOS). In the short term this might require some activism and sadly at times this might result in things like VLC being removed.
Disclaimer - I am not affiliated with the FSF, Nokia, Apple, VLC or any other party in question.
I think that's because it's news when it's a weapon but when it's a shield it just works. The majority of developers aren't trying to subvert the license; they work within the terms. You only hear about the license when somebody has broken the terms.
Then don't use GPL'd code. End of discussion.
It's also the reason I stopped hacking on Diaspora after the initial excitement wore off and I actually read the licensing terms. Well, that and their ill-advised copyright aggregation policy, which was apparently set up to allow for future dual-licensing (which I thought was pretty hypocritical).
Adjusted source to allow installation to /Applications is here: http://rpetri.ch/github/MobileVLC
Could you submit patches that make sense for upstream?
I thought my opinion of Apple fanboys was pretty low already, but it seems it's got much further down to go.
On a side note: I recently made the difficult decision of creating a library from scratch since the only one available was GPL. I guess that was the correct decision after all?
I distribute Wood and Stones with the NoDRM license:
https://github.com/raganwald/wood_and_stones
Now somebody creates a new platform, let's say it's a watch that runs games. It has DRM built into everything it runs. It has a DRM-Store that allows free-as-in-beer apps. It is wildly successful, millions of people have these watches and everyone wants to play Go on them.
So: These millions of users want the "freedom" to run my app with DRM. I believe on principle that the world is more free if authors like me take a stance against DRM, which by definition limits freedom to every user downloading my game.
You can debate which position enhances freedom, but I think it's reasonable to agree that the author of a NoDRM license and the person choosing a NoDRM license believe they are enhancing freedom even as they deny users the right to use their app with DRM on it.
Personally, what I believe is that free software licenses--like the fictitious NoDRM--ensure that users are free to choose free alternatives. Most users won't make that choice, but then again most people aren't self-employed either. Nevertheless, our respective societies are considered free because self-employment is an option, and software is free if free software is an option.
It's like an autoworker who wants everybody to unionize, and so he organizes sit-ins, but instead of ever forming the union that one guy just sits around all the time not working, ticking everybody else off.
I don't owe "some Go enthusiast" anything. They are not the worse off for anything, I didn't give them something and take it away. In fact, what I did was say, "If you choose to use a platform without DRM, you can get this thing I wrote for free." But hey, if that doesn't float the Go enthusiast's boat, he sticks with DRM. It's his choice, I am not stopping him from doing anything.
Arguing that I have some moral obligation to write software for proprietary distribution is like arguing that I ought to write Windows software because more people can use it. Which leads to arguing that I ought to stop writing programming tools and start writing games.
You and the Go enthusiast are free to choose free software or proprietary software, or nearly free software, do what you like. Better still, you're free to write your own software from scratch and stop whining about what other developers choose to do with the fruit of their labours.
How much more freedom do you want? And where do you think the freedom to write software without kowtowing to a corporation came from? Free software, that's where.
And no, I'm not like an auto worker sitting all the time not working, and neither is anybody else who writes free software. Does this look like not working to you?
I'm working, it's just that I choose what I work on, and under what conditions it may be distributed.
A better comparison would be that someone writing free software is like a hippie who grows his own coffee beans and sells them at the side of the road by his farm. You can't buy them at Tim Horton's or Dunkin Doughnuts because the hippie doesn't like what the big chains do with the coffee.
So you go to the hippie or you don't drink the coffee he grows. The problem is that you bought yourself a shiny espresso machine that only takes pods distributed by the manufacturer. So even if you buy the hippie's beans, you can't make yourself any coffee with them because the machine won't take them unless they've been shipped to the manufacturer and packaged into little special pellets.
How is this the hippie's fault for not liking big coffee chains or espresso machines? You can drink plenty of coffee, and you can buy a plot of land and grow your own coffee to be distributed by the espresso machine maker. You can buy a different kind of espresso maker that takes ground beans directly.
The hippie is free and you are free. The hippie hasn't shut down the big chains, but that isn't his goal. His goal is to sleep at night, comfortable that he has made choices compatible with his personal beliefs and that he has given other people the freedom to make choice compatible with their personal beliefs.
I can think of no greater definition of freedom.
"Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this."Same with freedom 3 - if I make changes in that manner, I may not distribute them.
As a user, I am less free with the GPL than other licenses.
Not that this is a bad thing, but if the goal of the FSF is freedom of the user, they've got a ways to go.
I'm guessing you mean a web-app where your "audience" is running the software provided as a service. In that situation, the AGPL requires that you provide them the source code so they aren't beholden to you.
Otherwise, a web service is even more closed source than a binary executable.
The "audience" absolutely does not run the software, you do, on your computer — you just allow them to interact with it.
Also you're absolutely mistaken in thinking that the AGPL makes your users any less beholden to you when you still control their data — the program by itself is absolutely worthless, even with the means to develop and deploy it.
The point is that, from the perspective of your users-- your "audience"-- they're running software somewhere out in the Internet. Where the GPL ensured (amongst other things) that they'd have access to the source of their local programs, the AGPL ensures they have access to the source of their remote programs.
From your perspective, this decreases your freedom as a developer because you're required to distribute your source code to your "audience." But, you have a simple recourse: don't use the AGPL!
wrt. the clickwrap EULA, I think the GPL and its variants have always been a set of terms and conditions. I don't know Stallman's arguments or what you're railing against; but, I will guess that his problem with clickwrap EULAs were that they limited how a user could personally use the software... or, worse, made other at-best tangentially related demands of them. The GPL and its variants do not limit your personal use, but rather constrain your ability to re-distribute the software.
wrt. the AGPL making users any less beholden due to the data silo effect, my position is that a program isn't intrinsically useless without a user's data... or even the developer's own custom data.
Consider a site like Facebook, where the primary value is in its network effects: anyone could open a competitor site that had feature parity. If the original site (Facebook) changed its policies in a way the userbase disliked, they could move to a competitor knowing the functionality would be the same.
Or, consider the GPL release of id software's old games. None of the assets are free. However, that didn't stop a huge ecosystem from springing up. Derivatives, alternate games, and the many thousands of people gaining an understanding of how to make a Real Game.
Facebook users do not see themselves as running software beyond their browser — it's just a website they use to communicate. It would be just as ridiculous to want the source to a SMTP/IMAP or XMPP server just because you have an account on it. The user-facing software is just CRUD plumbing — the account is what has value, and future control over that identity on that domain is usually more valuable than even the past data.
The GPL's conditions cleverly fit within the enforcement mechanisms of copyright law, it's a license to redistribute not a contract for use. The AGPL is totally different, it attempts to restrict your ability to run the software on a network-connected computer, much like the standard EULA text forbids you from using it in a nuclear facility. Unlike the GPL, you have to agree to its terms to execute it. One of these things is not like the other.
The id software games are a poor example, those ecosystems of mods were established when the games were commercially released, with tens of thousands of users making their own assets for the game engine they purchased. The GPL releases all came years into their decline, and several of the games had FOSS implementations of their engines before the original source was released.
Apple lost (or, more accurately, never had) the freedom to distribute VLC under the terms and conditions of the App Store. And the end users cannot get VLC from the App Store; though, it's readily available from other sources.
Whether or not Facebook users see themselves as running software isn't relevant to the argument. A person who licenses their software under the AGPL does view it that way. Therefore, if you choose to host that software, you're required to redistribute the source code. The AGPL doesn't restrict your ability to use the software on a network-connected computer. It does, however, require you to distribute the source code to any other users who use the software. If you don't want to distribute the code, then don't let other people use the software over the network!
I don't think it would be ridiculous to want the source to a server-- whether or not I had an account on it. But, I'm a curious guy.
I also agree that there is a lot of value in the account and identity. But, that's a different issue than the software and its license.
The id software games all had previously existing ecosystems. However, I was specifically referring to the ecosystems around the engines. Those improvements, derivatives, and the insight into a professional game engine were only possible after those releases. And I think that Quake's position as the often first-ported game to new game systems is a good testament.
Quite frankly, your argument confuses me because you claim the software itself is of limited value while simultaneously taking umbrage at being required to redistribute it.
[1] "Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software." http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
[2] "Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone else—or even those of the whole rest of the world. ... To those who propose this as an ethical axiom—the author is more important than you—I can only say that I, a notable software author myself, call it bunk." http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
Maybe you meant you can't distribute a closed source program that depends on a GPL library?
Thus, freedoms 2 & 3 are somewhat…flexible in practice.
Can you link to where RMS expressed that opinion? It goes directly against GNU's FAQ on the GPL[1].
It is a copyright violation to distribute closed source plugins for the GIMP. But, that is the reverse of the photoshop situation. The GIMP is GPL and so anything linking with it must also guarantee the same redistribution rights.
But, neither of these examples conflicts against your earlier examples. The GPL places no restrictions on your-- or your neighbor's-- personal use. And, you may distribute a GPL extension to a closed source product.
Of course, GNU would rather you'd implement a free software equivalent. :rolls eyes:
One of GPL's requirements is that when you distribute GPLed code, you can not impose any additional terms on the recipient.
When a user obtains an app from the App Store, Apple makes a copy of the app and that is downloaded to the user. This means that Apple needs permission of the copyright owner to do this. For most apps, there is no problem, because the developer owns the copyright, and grants Apple permission to make and distribute copies.
When the developer has included GPL code that he does not own, and whose owner has not granted an exception for Apple, Apple has to obey GPL. That means imposing no terms beyond GPL on the recipient.
Unfortunately, Apple does impose terms on the user--you aren't allowed to use the App Store unless you agree to Apple's terms, which include limits on what you can do with the downloaded software.
If a GPL project hasn't planned from the start to allow for the possibility of granting license exemptions, it is fairly easy to let outside GPL code get into the project without its authorship being carefully tracked and documented.
This is the original post by Rémi Denis-Courmont, on the VLC developers mailing list pertaining to the takedown notice filed at the end of October. In it he links to another FSF post about incompatibilities between the App Store licensing terms, and the GPL, as well as his rational for filing the takedown notice
EDIT: Sorry Callahad for the dupe, you typed faster than I did.
Also reading that older HN discussion from two months ago it appears that Apple had addressed the compatibility of the AppStore T&C with the GPL (by adding an "unless" clause covering any prior licensing between the user and the software vendor) - has this changed since then?
Can anyone care to comment without bashing either side? Thanks.
As I understand, FSF and Remi did not request Apple for removal, they requested either Apple modify their terms of use to be compatible with GPL, or failing that, remove the app. It was Apple's choice.
EDIT: the parent added question about App Store terms change after I replied. I am working on that.
Apple's only choice was to remove it, they were never going to create a special set of ToS just for these applications, and they were even less likely to alter their overall ToS to be compatible with the GPL.
http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Decembe...
They preferred to plainly remove it.
Seems like a good way for closed source apps to remove their open source competition.
Not all open source uses GPL, thankfully.
One developer with a grudge can cause a problem, even if that developer has a tenuous connection to the project.
http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Decembe...
Just remember to name it "VLC" or "VLC media player" and not "VLC Media Player"
http://ompldr.org/vNndvaA/CV.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3232537/docs/CV.pdf
What I'm guessing is of interest:
Email: remi@remlab.net
Ph. #: (+358) 50 487 6315
Am I wrong here?
It's such a shame... This to me has a similar kind of feel to patent trolling.
http://www.goodiff.org/changeset/597/apple/www.apple.com/leg...
Also, is it terribly selfish of me to find this enjoyable partly because of the App Store apologists and partly because it means there will be more focus on VLC for Android?
So no. This does not mean there will be more focus on VLC for Android.
If anything I think this is a bad thing for all software currently using the GPL.
I understand the claim and ultimately it's the author's decision, but I feel that using the GPL in this fashion is ironic at best and hypocritical at worst.
If you choose a license and don't follow it, what is the point of using that license?
By using GPL, you deliberately give a piece of software a life of its own. Because of the license, the action taken is not merely the author's decision, but something anyone can do, even if the author didn't wish for it (although it is only natural that the author is the first one to pursue compliance with the license he chose.)
This is not a bad thing for GPL'ed software. Instead, it is exactly what is (or at least should be) expected from using GPL. As said, there are also other licenses to use. If your expectations are different, use different license and don't submit to a license you find inadequate.
Remi's stance is not principled. Everyone that would want to have access to the source had access to the source. He has done this because of some idealogical dislike that he apparently has of the Apple ecosystem. Fine, it's within his rights, but he doesn't get to claim that he was the principled one in this incident, quite the contrary.
The distributor (Apple) is not allowed to impose further restrictions upon GPL'ed software. Surely the users are ultimately the losers, but that is not fault of the creators of the software, but of the distributor (Apple) who likes to keep a stranglehold over its users.
A simple lift on the terms of usage for Apple's service would resolve the issue trivially, even effortlessly. Why do not Apple's customers ask their vendor why this can't be done?
Alternatively, if there was any other way to (trivially, e.g. without jailbreaking) get the application into the device there would not be a problem at all.
IMHO, the FOSS ecosystem built on GPL cannot tolerate and sustain violations towards the license without eroding the meaning of the license. This is the issue of principle, and that is why it makes perfectly sense to stick to the license.
The true irony of the case is in that Apple's customers - even those who know about such great products of the free software ecosystem as VLC - willingly submit to the restrictions of Apple's platform and are surprised not to enjoy the same freedom as those who choose otherwise.
Edit: It seems that the distribution issue has actually been resolved, and the problem has shifted to other GPL-uncompliant restrictions, and ultimately to Apple's own decision to withdraw the app, without discussion.
http://www.hogbaysoftware.com/wiki/iOSDeveloperSelfSign
The problem here is that someone has made the assumption that the GNU GPL is permitted to impose restrictions on third parties or platform vendors. It isn't.
What happened here is that someone didn't understand what the GNU GPL does and does not do (and that includes the FSF, IMO) with respect to third-parties and platform vendors.
That aside, for me it is hard to see how Apple would not be the first-hand distributor for apps in its app store, as it clearly wants to control all distribution from the beginning to the end.
By loosening their stance on this (allowing easy installation of applications by other means) they would position themselves quite differently.
The GPL can't impose on third parties.
Do you have, or know a text that provides a proper explanation of 'GPL cannot impose restrictions on third parties', as the license (v2 as in the subject) clearly says:
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. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
What counters the statement "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein"?
Edit: formatting of the cited paragraph.
If this were the case, it would not be possible to ship ANY non-GPL-compatible software on Debian, for example, even in a non-free environment.
The question comes down to what the distribution site does, and they have two clauses: one for commercial and ne for non-commercial interests. They do not seem to be in conflict to me.
If a distribution site requires to accept a contract between the distributor and the downloader regarding the usage of the downloaded programs, it is not equal to an FTP site which merely puts programs available.
I don't understand how Apple's position as an OS vendor affects the situation, if the question is about distribution. I would really enjoy a thorough explanation about it, if there is one, since to me it does not make any sense.
If there is no conflict (any more) between Apple's terms of usage for downloaded apps and GPL, then it all boils down to Apple's decision to remove the application without reason (other than an invalidated claim of copyright infringement). In that case, all the other GPL'ed software could be returned to distribution.
I can imagine that even Apple's own personnel has hard time following all the changes in their own terms and their implications of cases like this, and that's why it would be the best if Apple simply lifted the restrictions of their platform.
If Applidium provides the source (or even re-signable binaries), then anyone with the platform vendor's normal access mechanisms can modify and install on their system. They can even go through the platform vendor's steps required to distribute.
(Yes, you can send re-signable binaries; Jesse Grosjean did this with early versions of PlainText. You only have to pay the access fee of $99/year to install it on your own devices.)
You are wrong, ultimately, it was Apple decision. The complaint was done in October, and Apple removed it just now, after refusing to answer the questions and clarify the case.
Not to mention, that it is a 3rd party that uploaded the application, and that Apple distributed the application.
One copyright holder asked filed a request for infringement, two months ago; and Apple has refused to help to discuss and solve the matter. And then, pulled the application...
And, you don't see people from VLC complaining.
I don't see why you are so aggressive on this matter.
But you say there is no VLC ("Who is 'you guys'?") from which people could complain.
This just looks slippery, and is the sort of thing that is likely to discourage businesses from working with GPL code at all.
You did not have a hand in authoring the iPad app, correct?
You submitted a claim to Apple about clauses in the GPL not being compatible with the App Store's distribution model, correct?
In my original statement, I don't think I made any point that could be considered "wrong". I stated one fact (a 3rd party developed the app) followed by my opinion. I'm sorry you don't think my opinion is 'correct', but that doesn't mean I'm going to bet against the proliferation of GPL'd software because of these actions.
Yes
> You did not have a hand in authoring the iPad app, correct?
Yes
> You submitted a claim to Apple about clauses in the GPL not being compatible with the App Store's distribution model, correct?
No. Because I personally think it is compatible with the GPL. But I need a clear answer from Apple to convince other developers, that don't think so.
No, because VLC for iOS was done by the Mac guys of VLC, while the Android port is done by Linux developers.
However, iOS and Android share a lot of code, and some work on iOS will be reusable on Android, especially the OpenGL ES 2 video output.
May people choose other less restricted platforms instead.