Parts of VLC are now re-licensed under the LGPL
plus.google.com
plus.google.com
Now of course we are 6 weeks down the track with a different library but we're a while off feature complete and if libvlc can do everything we need . . .
Decisions decisions.
Contact me, if you want.
http://www.videolan.org/press/lgpl.html
This change was motivated to match the evolution of the video industry and to spread the VLC engine as a multi-platform open-source multimedia engine and library.
Maybe another motivation was the licensing problem with the Apple App Store. This should be resolved with LGPL. (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/no-gpl-apps-for-apples...)
Having more people using libVLC is important for us, though...
GPL and LGPL are totally fine with iOS.
About the AppStore, the issue is mainly that it does not allow shared-objects, as far as I know, and makes it hard to replace parts of the code. However, IIRC, AppStore allows Frameworks. So, if a Framework is LGPL, and therefore weakly- linked, it might be just fine.
But, yes, it is normal that the FSF does not answer, since this is a complex issue.
We were GPL. We want other people to use the Library, so we went L-GPL, since this was the simplest solution and the more respectful of the spirit of old developers.
When you say AppStore you have to make a distinction between Mac and iOS.
As a platform, iOS doesn't allow you to bundle any dynamically linked libraries with your application (so everything everyone ships on iOS is statically linked). You can dynamically link system libraries though. Since they don't allow you to download and execute any code not shipped with the app, this hasn't been a big issue (except with trying to use LGPL code and to port apps that are already configured around dynamic loading or use different processes to isolate functionality).
Now Mac apps fully allow dynamically linked libraries bundled with your app (even with sandboxing enabled). There are fewer restrictions on the Mac AppStore in this respect. Like for example, plugins are fully allowed and supported. Code added to the app after the fact is fine (as long as the advertised core in the app store is there without downloading additional code). On this, working with LGPL restrictions are little more plausible.
A framework is basically a bundle of dynamic libraries and headers in a package. Frameworks for that reason are no different than dynamic libraries, so your usage of the term here and false distinction from "shared-objects" is incorrect here.
LGPL requires that you allow the user to be able replace the LGPL library out completely and that you release the source to the library if you, the user, who I distributed a binary copy from, requests it. This is just not possible on iOS with static linking of course, but it is possible on Mac OSX.
The bigger issue is that Apple is the "distributor" of the app and not the developer that gave the copy to Apple. If I wanted to request LGPL code, I would have to contact Apple because I obtained the application from them not the developer that gave them a copy. Apple doesn't have a facility for this.
The reason why Apple AppStore and GPL don't mix is that Apple added a restriction as to how many times you could copy the binary while GPL explicitly states that you are allowed to make as many copies as you want.
I've never understood the problem with the AppStore anyway. For example, if I bought a copy of Red Hat Linux from Best Buy and it didn't include the source code, I would go to Red Hat for it, not Best Buy. To me, the AppStore is just a middleman.