Slashdot Mirror

After half an hour with the Gnome 3 Shell I *really* want my old desktop back

Personally, I have gmrun bound to a convenient key combination, and I firmly hope that will help me through the looming nuclear winter of redesigned desktops. http://directory.fsf.org/project/gmrun/

> Another thing that bothers me is that the FSF stuff almost comes across as negative, so 3DS is evil, iPad is evil, Kindle is evil, etc. Great, but what hardware is actually ok to buy? Why is there still no hardware database of the good stuff that doesn't limit my rights?

http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw

Here is a list of open source projects for telephony and video from the FSF. Help out if you can. http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/

As described here: http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html

Here and here.

Thanks. Good reading, at least the first one about RMS. RMS is wise. I particularly like his Eric Raymond observations. The last chapter about the book license and publishing deal contains the exciting bits.

Here and here.

Good. The main pages didn't seem to mention these free version. They seemed to obfuscate the issue with the free to anonymously pay cash comment:

These books will be available electronically as PDFs but will notably not be distributed in the Amazon Kindle format or for any other proprietary ebook reading platform, because of the Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) those systems impose on users. "This malicious device," says Stallman, "is designed to attack the traditional freedoms of readers: There's the freedom to acquire a book anonymously, paying cash — impossible with the Kindle for all well-known recent books. There's the freedom to give, lend, or sell a book to anyone you wish — blocked by DRM and unjust licenses. Then there's the freedom to keep a book — denied by a back door for remote deletion of books."

Here and here.

The FSFs stance, but since the FSF are just anti MS, Stallman following loonies (right?), here's Groklaw's stance. I'm sure you can find more with your friend.

But don't let the facts presented by people who understand the applicable law and the related issues stop your fanboyism.

2) Stop plagarizing Richard Stallman's quotes without attribution:

http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

+1. I was just thinking, what a well written argument. Oh wait, you did not write it.

You probably know this, but the OP you're quoting just wholesale copied RMSs FSF statement on .NET (linky: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono)

I agree with you entirely though, it's FUD.

1) Do your research:

http://www.microsoft.com/interop/principles/osspatentpledge.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/IPLicensing/customercovenant/msnovellcollab/patent_agreement.aspx

2) Stop plagarizing Richard Stallman's quotes without attribution:

http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

Looking through the Mono application screenshots, what I believe are the most popular programs impacted by Mono development slowing are Banshee, F-Spot, and Tomboy. Since this trio is easily replaced by Rhythmbox, gThumb, and Gnote, among other options, good riddance to the lot of them. In addition to the standard Stallman concerns, the high concentration of the development team within Novell was always a problem anyway. There are way too many similar applications within open-source operating systems, so culling out some of the weaker ones--from a development risk standpoint--is a net benefit as far as I'm concerned.

The "religious fundamentalism" you deride is responsible for developing the system that millions are using on desktops, media boxes, phones, etc., for free. The only reason people work for free is when they are working for an ideal.

As far as your specific concern about video drivers, Ubuntu doesn't (and can't) distribute nVidia's proprietary graphics driver. But downloading and enabling it is as easy as clicking System> Administration> Hardware Drivers.

The last time I checked, fundamentalist preachers don't have "click here for a keg" signs in their churches.

"When we call software âoefree,â we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of âoefree speech,â not âoefree beer.â"

Notice the phrase "to redistribute copies" - that's "free as in beer". The FSF wants to paint is as a "freedom" issue when they're also smuggling in "free" under that banner.

Nice troll.

http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

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 redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

...

Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere.

And further proof that you are the one trying to peddle your crap:

Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so.

Sometimes it's hard to make a distinction.

I'm always looking for ways to be supportive of FSF's stances, but they are a puritan organization. As such, they present views that they know won't gain mainstream acceptance but that's ok, since something more reasonable will gain it. And that's where I stand: I don't consider words of FSF to be holy, but I will support a more "secular" view.

Same here. It's unreasonable to consider an offering "libre" to be truly possible without being fully "unpaid". Not because they are linguistically indistinct concepts, but because they are not to be expected. Licensing schemes, as they exist today for end users, typically allow software that costs thousands to develop (if not monetary, then in food) to be available for lower prices. "Splitting the cost."

Software needs funding before it exists. It's unreasonable to offer people a "donation jar" to fund software that doesn't exist yet and is unproven. Rare examples of success are not always truly success. Most software is funded a-priori in good faith that somehow one can pay it back. How? By selling a-posteriori. Selling software that must be freely copyable by the recipient is possible, and explicitly supported by FSF, this is rarely feasible nowadays if developing software is your primary work in life. This is because you will rarely have the success of Blender in order to sell other merchandise. A lot of work done under free software platforms is done by volunteers, but a lot of highest quality work is done by companies that have other means of earning money. It's really hard to get quality software written fast when it's not your primary thing in life and with free software, it's hard to make it a primary thing. And if you can't think of writing free software as of a profession because you don't have the financial backing to write free software, FSF bluntly says you shouldn't think of it as your profession. I can't dig it out right now, but it's either somewhere on FSF's site, on GNU site, or on Stallman.org.

It's easy to pretend "libre" isn't followed by "unpaid". It's also easy to see that it's just a pretense. Let's hope that FSF's list of high priority projects does prove me wrong, that you indeed can stick out a donation jar and expect the money to flow a-priori. Because then I will indeed dedicate myself to working on tons of free software projects that I've either started already, or just wanted to work on. I want to work on a good blogging tool for GNU/Linux and Mac. Can I get a-priori funding for that? Or is it easier to dismiss pride and ideals and just sell on the Mac App Store, not opening the source since something like this might happen?

I will hide here: http://www.jamendo.com/
Or here: http://listen.grooveshark.com/
And here: http://www.fsf.org/
And definitely here: http://creativecommons.org/
And why not here: http://www.fanfiction.net/
Or here: http://www.openculture.com/free_ebooks
... and a myriad of other places on the Internet, including those where I publish my own works.

That being said, I don't think abolishing copyright will mean the end of commercial media, since there are many other ways to make money from them. For example, most blockbuster movies make most of their profit in the first one or two weeks, and people are willing to pay a premium to see the film early, with high quality, and added value features like 3D and advanced sound systems. TV productions are almost entirely financed by advertisements, not future DVD sales. Most artists already earn most of their income from concerts, not from CD/downloadable music sales. And so on.

But you will have a hard time distributing your application if it means that you cannot also distribute the libraries that you depend upon.

The internet is a great thing.

Stallman, et al. have publicly taken the position that it doesn't matter who does the linking (the app developer or the customer), that it's still a violation.

I believe that if I write an application that needs a GPLed dynamic library component (for example, one that just happens to be available on most modern Linux distros), that I'm in the clear if I distribute the app. Or even if I distribute the app in a package that calls out the GPLed component as a dependency.

Now, I can easily believe that someone like Canonical might be in trouble if they distribute this app, because they're also distributing the GPLed library. But I think I would be fine just distributing my app, and I think that if I did so, the FSF might wail and gnash their teeth about it, but in the end they wouldn't do anything.

For example, the Eclipse license FAQ states that a plugin is not a derivative work, and yet that "Based upon the position of the Free Software Foundation, you may not combine EPL and GPL code in any scenario where linking exists between code made available under those licenses."

This is IBM very charitably saying "we don't believe this and don't care or enforce it, but obviously the FSF believes this deeply.

I, myself, contribute to a BSD licensed library that can make use of a GPLed library if it's installed. We don't distribute the GPLed library, so I don't think there is an issue. In a way, I'd actually like to see the FSF sue someone about this to get some caselaw on the subject, but they're way too smart for that. Much easier just to sling FUD, even if you do have to write all sorts of monotonous FAQs filled with half-truths. (At least, the FAQs do serve the valid purpose of keeping someone from committing an actual license violation by shipping GPL and non-GPL code side by side, but all the dancing on the head of the pin to avoid admitting there are some nuanced cases that the GPL can't and doesn't control gets annoying after awhile.)

Writing a license and knowing exactly how a court of law will interpret that license are two entirely different things. We now may know the intent of the license, but until it's tested in court, that intent means nothing.

Here, let me fix that for you ...

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/09/24/1316220/GPL-Wins-In-French-Court-Case

"An appeals court in Paris has upheld the ruling from a lower court, which found that the French firm Edu4 had violated the GNU General Public License (GPL). The plaintiff was the French Organisation Association francaise pour la Formation Professionnelle des Adultes (AFPA), an umbrella organization for adult education."

http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/7145/1/

In December 2009, the Software Freedom Conservancy filed lawsuits against 14 consumer electronics vendors alleging that they were not in compliance with the GPL license. Of those 14 vendors, 13 have now either settled amicably or are in productive discussions toward a settlement.

In one case, consumer electronics vendor Westinghouse failed to comply, and a U.S. District Court has now ruled in a default judgment against it.

http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html

gpl-violations.org project prevails in court case on GPL violation by D-Link

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

DISTRICT COURT OF FRANKFURT ISSUES VERDICT ON GPL VIOLATION OF D-LINK

BERLIN, Germany - September 22, 2006 -- The gpl-violations.org project prevails
in court litigation against D-Link Germany GmbH regarding D-Link's alleged
inappropriate and copyright infringing use of parts of the Linux Operating
System Kernel.
...
On September 6, 2006 the district court issued its judgement, confirming the
claims by gpl-violations.org, specifically its rights on the subject-matter
source code, the violation of the GNU GPL by D-Link, the validity of the GPL
under German law, and D-Links obligation to reimburse gpl-violations.org for
legal expenses, test purchase and cost of re-engineering.

http://www.fsf.org/news/wallace-vs-fsf

The GPL tested in US courts - Wallace Vs FSF.
by Matt Lee — last modified March 23, 2006 18:34

The GNU General Public License stands firm.
On Monday March 20, 2006 US Federal Judge John Daniel Tinder, dismissed the Sherman Act antitrust claims brought against the Free Software Foundation. The claims made by Plaintiff Daniel Wallace included: that the General Public License (GPL) constituted a contract, combination or conspiracy; that it created an unreasonable restraint of trade; and that the FSF conspired with IBM, Red Hat Inc., Novell and other individuals to pool and cross-license their copyrighted intellectual property in a predatory price fixing schem

Here.

Take a look at:

http://www.fsf.org/news/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement

It appears the most likely reason is that they* wish to add more terms and conditions to the download, and the GPL specifically forbids it. So rather than ease their terms for GPL, they just don't play.

*they == both Apple and Microsoft, but presumably not Android Marketplace

Only GPL was banned because of the ToS which is forbidden under the GPL. Same thing happened with Apple's AppStore.

The US DoD even gave FSF an endorsement of free software for fsf.org:

http://www.fsf.org/working-together/profiles/department-of-defense

Others:
http://www.fsf.org/working-together/whos-using-free-software

The US DoD even gave FSF an endorsement of free software for fsf.org:

http://www.fsf.org/working-together/profiles/department-of-defense

Others:
http://www.fsf.org/working-together/whos-using-free-software

End users of software don't have to comply with the (L)GPL. The license only places restrictions on distribution. The problem is that the App Store terms and services also place restrictions on the software downloaded from the App Store, and any license provided by the authors of the software applies in addition to that. Apple's terms place restrictions that the (L)GPL disallows and thus the two conflict.

(source: http://www.fsf.org/news/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement)

It is, of course, no surprise that Apple would remove a piece of software rather than modify their terms of service to be compatible with the GPL. Apple's terms serve the interests of Apple above all, and the interests of app authors are secondary; even if an app were deemed desirable by itself, a single app isn't significant enough to warrant changes that Apple might consider risky, difficult or otherwise undesirable; and Apple doesn't even like the GPL.

OK, here's an FSF blog post about the conflict between the GPL - GPLv2, in particular - and the App Store's licensing terms. As it says:

That's the problem in a nutshell: Apple's Terms of Service impose restrictive limits on use and distribution for any software distributed through the App Store, and the GPL doesn't allow that. This specific case involves other issues, but this is the one that's most unique and deserves explanation.

What exactly *is* the conflict between the GPL and the App Store T&Cs, anyway? The FSF have a piece up that talks about the "only install app on five devices limit" but I think that's a red herring -- AFAIK you can only sync iTunes DRM content (i.e. movies and music) on five computers, but iOS apps can be installed on limitless devices attached to an iTunes account. And the company who ported VLC, Applidium, were hosting a full download of the VLC app source on their own site. I can't really see the difference between this and, say, a Netgear router firmware where the company hosts a download for the source; in both that case and the VLC app, the user gets a binary file, and can optionally grab the source and compile the binary themselves and run it (in an emulator, admittedly, in the case of the iOS app, but you're still running it. Pretty sure the GPL distribution clause doesn't have to target the exact same platform, does it?)

What am I missing, if anything? What exactly is it that blocks GPL on the App Store?

INAL, but I wonder why the developer couldn't offer the identical software through separate, more open channels in addition to the appStore, thus satisfying the GPL even though the appStore distribution channel in itself does not satisfy the GPL?

Evince loads large PDF files in less than 3 seconds and uses a comparatively small amount of memory. Scrolling is smooth, as well.

Even evince is starting to suffer from bloat. I've recently gone back to using xpdf on my desktop box, and put ePDFView on my netbook.

Are you a law geek?

* Be a Licensing Volunteer. Help us answer the many questions we receive every day at the FSF regarding the use and abuse of free software licenses. If you are interested, write to licensing@fsf.org and tell us a bit about your background, both legal and with the free software community, if you are interested. Please also run through the GPL quiz and let us know how you do.

As an aside, if you are *neither* a lawyer nor a programmer and you're still interested in supporting open source projects, there are lots of ways to get involved. This includes those with an interest in art, linguistics, writing, testing, organizing/assisting at public functions, etc. Tons of very different approaches. Check out the link above for more info.

http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/index_html/#skypereplacement

Here goes. Yes it is sort of a screed written today:

How to organize for a political push to restructure copyright and patent law?

Advocating for changes in copyright and patent law is basically a sharks versus minnows problem. The sharks are the relatively few businesses who are able to write laws and lobby for their passage. The minnows are the 200 million plus people who buy material covered by copyright and patent protection.
At the level of Federal law, the sharks have been winning by arguing for and lobbying for broader laws and longer terms of copyright and patent protection.
I write here about the problem by cutting it into three parts. One part is “How do you organize the minnows.” Part two is: “How do you argue for less restrictive copyright and patent laws? Part three is: “What law do you write and what do you ask elected representatives to vote for?”

On the problem of “How do you organize the minnows?”

I recently discovered an article that shows how and why an organization effort could plausibly employ a social network site like Facebook. The kind of action group that is plausible is: A loose social network.
The article title is “Small Change Why the revolution will not be tweeted.” by Malcolm Gladwell, published in The New Yorker magazine, October 4, 2010.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell

1. Copyright and patent reform needs to be a non-partisan movement.
2. As an issue for the large numbers of “minnow” advocates, this will be a relatively small commitment activity that does not require the intense friendship and hierarchical structure of the American Civil Rights movement. The Malcom Gladwell article above eloquently disassembles the presumption that a Facebook type advocacy program can create a disciplined, hierarchical organization. Instead of an institution, a Facebook advocacy program tends to create a loose network.
3. The hundreds of thousands of reform advocates need a set of winning arguments.
4. Money and rhetoric: In the absence of a better rule of thumb, the lobbying and campaign donation dollars deployed needs to match or exceed by a factor of two the lobbying and campaign donation dollars spent by the “shark”advocates. The movement needs a well documented estimate of the shark lobby hours and dollars and shark campaign spending and a matching tally for the “minnow” advocates.
Unless something changes, let's assume that money talks in politics. The movement needs both money and quality talk. The copyright and patent reform activity needs both a coherent rhetorical argument and matching donations.

On the problem of “How do you argue for less restrictive copyright and patent laws?”

There are many instances where copyright and patent protections are an encumberance and annoyance. For instance:

German Kindergartens Ordered To Pay Copyright For Songs http://idle.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/12/29/169253

Several legal arguments are of great importance to the development of an effective advocacy argument. Some thinkers are:
Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation.
http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society-2/
Lawrence Lessig, law professor and copyright lawyer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig

The intellectual property and entertainment industries have a very strong argument for more restrict

I'd vote for Indymedia, 2600, Wikileaks, Pirate Bay, Pirate Parties International, the EFF, FSF, and cDc communications to regulate the Internet. And Open Meshshould be the direction of growth. Ok then, we aren't going to get to coordinate "The Internet", we'll settle for The ParallelNet. There's enough geeks for it.

Free Software Foundation website published a detailed chronology of the incident.

You could contact the FSF. They have a legal department that can help you with this.

http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-November/077457.html

But my political opinion on AppStores is not relevant to the legality of
VLC on those AppStores. And guess what, nor is FSF political opinion!

I really dislike when people use VLC to advance their _own_ political
agenda. And that is true when it is Apple, Microsoft, Google or the FSF.
There is a minimum of politeness that is essential and that was not
respected...
And I HATE bullshitors...

I really like RMS past work and actions, but I don't like how the FSF is
using the situation here.

I also strongly believe that the freedom is to open VLC on as many
platforms as possible.

And as VideoLAN does not force copyright assignments, I believe VLC is
more open that many FSF/GNU projects...

Finally, and more importantly, if there is any actual legal issue regarding
VLC and one AppStore term, it should be removed from this AppStore.

Oh, and btw, I do not thank people who force me to write such posts,
when I have better to do, like working on Blu-Ray playback...
Oh, and btw, the next person that says it is obvious and simple, I will
force them to compile VLC+Contribs for Win32 3 times. .....

And guess what, the AppStore terms have changed!

Try to grep "Products contain security technology" and "in addition to any other"
on the above document.
If you don't know how to grep, try "man grep" and "man curl"

Maybe the FSF statements made Apple change the ToS, maybe Rémi's
complaint, maybe... $(put whatever you want here).

Conclusion of part I.
---------------------
The FSF statement is not valid anymore, and therefore the
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/vlc-enforcement/ is just plainly
wrong (or FUD)

Those who submitted VLC to Apple are not in compliance with the license but Apple is also a distributor, so they are both infringing. But Apple is the focus of this /. thread, so I focus on Apple here.

The Apple App Store is not some organization where Apple can't determine what submitters have submitted and Apple somehow has no choice but to distribute everything that comes their way. Apple has no excuse like, say, a phone company selling service to a home where the phone company can't tell ahead of time if the home users will use the phone service in some manner that aides copyright infringement. Apple has rules for determining which programs are on their App Store and, as objectionable as those rules are, they retain full power to decide what's in and out. Therefore Apple has ample opportunity to dig into licensing detail and discuss submissions with submitters.

Furthermore, and more to your point about fraud, Apple's agreement with its upstream (those that submitted VLC to the Apple App Store) does not affect the copyright license under which VLC and its derivatives are distributed. Apple has to comply with that license, in this case the GNU GPL.

The GPL doesn't distinguish between distributors (GPLv2)/conveyors (GPLv3) allowing some to comply but not others (that would be an easily-exploited hole whereby GPLed free software would quickly become proprietary). All distributors/conveyors have the same obligations to add no restrictions to the license. Apple did not do that, therefore Apple is infringing just as Apple infringed the GPL when they distributed GNU Go.

The difference here is in how the copyright holders chose to react: the FSF, as per usual, sought license compliance when they were defending their license with GNU Go ("We have not sued Apple, nor have we sent them any legal demand that they remove the programs from the App Store." -- Brett Smith, FSF License Compliance Engineer). The FSF wanted Apple to change the terms of their App Store rules so they could simultaneously comply with the GPL and their own rules. Apple declined and stopped distributing GNU Go. Rémi Denis-Courmont took a different approach by sending "a formal notification of copyright infringement" to Apple as is Denis-Courmont's right.

Getting a developer's license has nothing to do with this; Apple is distributing a binary of a ported VLC in contravention of VLC's license. Apple's App Store rules are the heart of the issue: Apple's App Store rules prohibit them from complying with the GNU GPL which disallows adding restrictions to its (now longstanding) terms. Apple controls which apps enter and leave their App Store; they had as much time as they wanted to review license compliance and they apparently chose copyright infringement. Part of what makes this so bad is that they chose to infringe against people who are treating users so nicely: the GPL gives everyone (even Apple) all the license they need to distribute programs, even commercially.

Apple is most certainly responsible for infringingly distributing VLC. Much as you want to call the FSF names (your hyperbole suggests this is for reasons you can't justify), the FSF almost doesn't enter into the situation here except for being the author of the license VLC programmers chose to license VLC under. VLC programmer Rémi Denis-Courmont is simply defending his chosen license against an organization that would impose new restrictions on users of that variant of VLC.

So, if Apple chooses to remove VLC from their App Store as they removed GNU Go in May under what Denis-Courmont calls "strikingly similar circumstances", Apple will be making it that much less convenient for most iOS users to get and use VLC. Perhaps you should visit the FSF article linked to in the top of this /. thread which includes:

The GPL gives Apple permission to distribute this software through the App Store. All they would have to do is follow the license's conditions to help keep the software free. Instead, Apple has decided that they prefer to impose Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) and proprietary legal terms on all programs in the App Store, and they'd rather kick out GPLed software than change their own rules. Their obstinance prevents you from having this great software on Apple devices--not the GPL or the people enforcing it.

To take this the way you want to read it, it's almost as if you don't believe copyright holders should be able to choose their own license and legally defend their choice. We should all just bend to Apple's will and let them proprietarize or include DRM in the distribution of anything we make. Apparently there are GPLed program hackers who don't agree with that.

Apple isn't shipping squat. They are providing a mechanism for the Developer to Upload their solution to Apple's centrally distributed repository. It's on the Developer shoulders to take responsibility for their choices.

Getting a developer's license has nothing to do with this; Apple is distributing a binary of a ported VLC in contravention of VLC's license. Apple's App Store rules are the heart of the issue: Apple's App Store rules prohibit them from complying with the GNU GPL which disallows adding restrictions to its (now longstanding) terms. Apple controls which apps enter and leave their App Store; they had as much time as they wanted to review license compliance and they apparently chose copyright infringement. Part of what makes this so bad is that they chose to infringe against people who are treating users so nicely: the GPL gives everyone (even Apple) all the license they need to distribute programs, even commercially.

Apple is most certainly responsible for infringingly distributing VLC. Much as you want to call the FSF names (your hyperbole suggests this is for reasons you can't justify), the FSF almost doesn't enter into the situation here except for being the author of the license VLC programmers chose to license VLC under. VLC programmer Rémi Denis-Courmont is simply defending his chosen license against an organization that would impose new restrictions on users of that variant of VLC.

So, if Apple chooses to remove VLC from their App Store as they removed GNU Go in May under what Denis-Courmont calls "strikingly similar circumstances", Apple will be making it that much less convenient for most iOS users to get and use VLC. Perhaps you should visit the FSF article linked to in the top of this /. thread which includes:

The GPL gives Apple permission to distribute this software through the App Store. All they would have to do is follow the license's conditions to help keep the software free. Instead, Apple has decided that they prefer to impose Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) and proprietary legal terms on all programs in the App Store, and they'd rather kick out GPLed software than change their own rules. Their obstinance prevents you from having this great software on Apple devices--not the GPL or the people enforcing it.

To take this the way you want to read it, it's almost as if you don't believe copyright holders should be able to choose their own license and legally defend their choice. We should all just bend to Apple's will and let them proprietarize or include DRM in the distribution of anything we make. Apparently there are GPLed program hackers who don't agree with that.

v2 is compatible with the terms of the Apple App Store and pretty much any other app store out there.

Not according to the FSF.
The Apple App Store conditions are inimical to terms in GPLv2, which states explicitly: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." The Apple App Store explicitly sets such a restriction: "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." and requires that you accept this as a condition of using the App Store. It also lists various GPLv2-violating restrictions in its Usage Rules, such as limiting use of a product to five Apple-authorized devices.
http://www.fsf.org/news/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement

Today, a formal notification of copyright infringement
was sent to Apple Inc. regarding distribution of the VLC media player for
iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch. VLC media player is free software licensed
solely under the terms of the open source GNU General Public License
(a.k.a. GPL). Those terms are contradicted by the products usage rules of
the AppStore through which Apple delivers applications to users of its
mobile devices.

What exactly is the problem, ie, how exactly is Apple infringing?

I read both the VLC article and the linked to post about GNU Go and I'm unclear how exactly this works. I believe the complaint being made is that Apple does not guarantee that any/all software will be made available (FSF: http://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance) on the App store.

I'm by no means a GPL expert, but I thought that the "distribution" terms (at least in v2) were about the source code, and I don't believe this is contradicted by App store terms? Can't the VLC developers post the source code to their iOS app, thus satisfying the distribution requirement? Does the dist requirement apply to binaries (and the ability of other non-developer / non-jailbreak users to actually RUN the binaries)? Anybody with more gpl knowledge care to chime in?

Anyway, given that developers have to know and agree to the App store terms before submitting apps, wouldn't it be the developers who caused the infringement (FSF seems to say this)? Though I guess copyright is strict liability...

FTFA:
http://www.fsf.org/news/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement

Basically:

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.

In short, I think there are problems beyond DRM with GPL software being distributed through the app store.

Have you read the link robmv posted? While there's even more problems with putting GPL3 apps in the app store, the FSF's position is quite clear: the App Store TOS places additional legal restrictions on users of apps distributed within it that are forbidden by the GPL2.

That or because it is based on dosbox, that is GPL licensed, and we already know that Apple App Store and GPL does not mix

This gets much less attention than it deserves:

http://www.fsf.org/working-together/whos-using-free-software

Testimonies from Cern, NYSE, the EU, Wikipedia, and the US Department of Defense, plus another page of testimonies from individuals:

http://www.fsf.org/working-together/profiles/meet-the-free-software-community

This gets much less attention than it deserves:

http://www.fsf.org/working-together/whos-using-free-software

Testimonies from Cern, NYSE, the EU, Wikipedia, and the US Department of Defense, plus another page of testimonies from individuals:

http://www.fsf.org/working-together/profiles/meet-the-free-software-community

The iPad is iBad for your freedoms.

My freedoms have nothing to do with software. Software is not the centre of my universe despite the fact that I work as a software developer on the windows platform. I can choose to write software for multiple platforms and I find it laughable that the FSF keeps on talking about freedom when the GPL is full of restrictions and requirements. BSD is true freedom because freedom applies to "PEOPLE" and gives people the right to do whatever the hell they want with the code. Inanimate things like software and code only exist because some person created them. Code does not have rights, people do.

If someone wants to bring up Android as an example of openness, I would quickly point out that it is only open to the carriers and that hackers rooting android phones are doing nothing that they could not do with a jailbroken iOS device. The end user on most Android phones is restricted in what he/she can do on it without rooting the device which is basically the same as jailbreaking an iPhone.

The iPad is iBad for your freedoms.

Apple retired a GPLv2 application from the app store at, because the FSF was asking Apple to comply with the GPLv2:

http://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance

So I guess that this means that both Apple and the FSF Foundation agree that the app store terms are not compatible with GPLv2. As detailed in

http://www.fsf.org/news/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement

the key point seems to be that GPL explicitly says:

"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.",

and the app store agreements impose further restrictions.

Apple retired a GPLv2 application from the app store at, because the FSF was asking Apple to comply with the GPLv2:

http://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance

So I guess that this means that both Apple and the FSF Foundation agree that the app store terms are not compatible with GPLv2. As detailed in

http://www.fsf.org/news/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement

the key point seems to be that GPL explicitly says:

"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.",

and the app store agreements impose further restrictions.

Well... maybe this could be the result that Bilski should have been and SCOTUS will hold that software is not patentable subject matter.

(fingers crossed)