"This end should not have come to a surprise to anyone."
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?
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.