VLC was GPLv2+ and so was libVLC (the engine library that was spawned from VLC). VLC was put on iOS store as a GPLv2 app, which was not compatible with Apple ToS, and was therefore removed by Apple.
At the same time, libVLC was relicensed over 2 years to LGPLv2.1+ for reasons that were non related to appstores.
As a side-effect, VLC for iOS was rewritten and licensed as MPLv2 to be on the AppStore, with a slight bit less features.
For your information, the main reason that the AppStore is not GPL compatible, is because the AppStore DOES NOT allow you to use an application as you want (even non-open-source ones). This is forbidden by the GPL. Which shows exactly that the GPL tries to enforce the users freedom.
[1] http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2012/I-did-it [2] https://archive.fosdem.org/2015/schedule/event/appstores/
>Unlike a lot of large open source projects, authors of VLC keep all their rights on their code, even if the code is minimal.
http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2012/How-to-properly-relice...
For an entirely new project, would you rather require all contributors to assign copyright to a single entity which then manages licensing or would you have individuals retain copyright? (Off topic: is this even possible in France?)
First, there are more than 2 options. I'd say there are 3.
Copyright assignment is ALWAYS the wrong answer. It's a bad idea, and I would even that this is unethical, and illegal in numerous countries.
If you want more control, notably for a potential future license change, do a Copyright agreement that is not an assignment. Explain clearly what is in the agreement and what is not.
Total individual copyright is a great idea, but if you care about an application that will go on an appstore, don't go this route. If you integrate a lot of library, same. But if you do a new cool software, just for fun, yes, keep it like this.
That's disingenuous. GPL advocates don't want to limit users' freedom. GPL's Freedom 0 is allowing users to run code for any purpose.
The problem is that users don't decide what they can run on iPhones. Apple does, and Apple chose to forbid GPL code in the App Store.
---
I've licensed my code under GPL (and sent takedown requests to App Store multiple times) specifically to avoid supporting Apple's user-hostile policies with my gratis work.
App Store users have to give up their software freedom for privilege of using Apple's locked-down system. When my code helps increase number of App Store users, it helps increasing number of users who don't have software freedom.
If I license my app under a DRM-friendly license, then it gives competitive advantage to those who don't want to give users' freedom. Instead I license my apps under a DRM-incompatible license, so they give competitive advantage to those who respect users' freedom.
If you don't want your software to be used on that platform that's your choice, but pretending its about "user rights" is ridiculous.
But since you bring up the iphone. You know that the iphone is fundamentally based open permissive licensed software? I can't think of a more user freedom hostile platform than the iphone...
And yet, the whole iOS environment uses several permissive licensed software. This is a very good example how they damage user freedom, thank you.
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store...
Here's a more recent release, still urging people to avoid Apple.
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/watch-your-freedom-becau...
You have it backwards. Apple limits user freedom with their licensing restrictions on iOS. Copyleft isn't welcome on iOS, and we shouldn't blame free software advocates for that.
However, there is a distortion in your post that is very, very critical for this argument.
Like all software licenses, the GPL controls DISTRIBUTION of the software. This is a legal concept, not a technical one. Downloading software to your computer and copying it to your iPhone isn't distribution, because you own both devices.
The GPL, as a copyleft license, specifies that a distributor may not make any additional restrictions on future distributors (like users). This is so I can't redistribute Linux as proprietary software, for example.
However, Apple had, at the time of the VLC removal (and likely has similar wording today), this clause in the App store ToS:
>You acknowledge that Products contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following applicable Usage Rules, and, whether or not Products are limited by security technology, you agree to use Products in compliance with the applicable Usage Rules.
And, in the Usage Rules:
>The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, IN ADDITION (emphasis added) to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party.
TL/DR? Apple places ADDITIONAL restrictions on software distributed through the app store. This violates the GPL.
You have this backwards in your post. You say that the GPLv3 prohibits use on the iPhone, but in fact, the Apple ToS prohibits DISTRIBUTION of GPL'd software through the App Store.
End-users are perfectly free to install VLC on their devices. They aren't breaking any laws by doing so. The GPL expressly allows using the software for any purpose. They could install it on a DRM'd toaster if they wanted to. However, DRMOaster Inc. can't distribute GPL'd software.
Instead of modifying its ToS to be more user-friendly, Apple decided to pull VLC from the app store. It could have gone differently.
(quotes pulled from https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store...)
This is incorrect. We changed for other reasons, notably competition and corporate acceptance of the libVLC engine. That relicensing was started way before the port to the AppStore.
Didn't you just basically say the same thing? The GPL forbids distribution under the App Store ToS, no?
I think it's rather backwards to say "the GPL forbids distribution under the App Store ToS", because the GPL has no concept of Apple's app store. The GPL predates the Apple App Store ToS by decades. Apple was actually forced to consider this policy when the VLC event happened, and chose to maintain it.