Slashdot Mirror
VLC Developer Takes a Stand Against DRM Enforcement
jamie writes "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."
Even if this looks like it all it'll do is deprive users of useful programs, it's still the good fight.
Apple exercising tight controls, I would have never thought of that.
So I guess now's the time to install VLC on my iOS device before it gets the boot?
to me it looks like the VLC developers had the app posted in the App Store so they could use this as a soapbox. The app on the iPad is a piece of crap and not really useable. I have since deleted it.
VLC, DRM, GNU, GPL, AGPL, FSF, iOS...
Did someone have a sale on acronyms?
I confess I've not read the GPL with an eye towards that exact question but I have read it and don't recall anything like that in it. As I recall it requires me to make available the sources of anything I compile. But I don't see why a delivery channel that wraps something in DRM is against the GPL. I can have the sources available both via the app istelf and online. DOes the GPL prevent me from using SSH or HTTS from _sending_ and _installing_ any code. No. so why should apple's encrypted conduit matter. And as for app signing, well you have to do that to run apps on any OSX machine now without getting warning messages in the logs. SO could someone explain how apple's app store is interfering with the GPL?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
The latest VLC version 1.1.3 has the GPL version 2 licence. Although the GPLv3 has anti-DRM and anti-Tivo-ization measures, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the GPLv2 licence allow Apple to distribute the software in the App Store with DRM, as long as the also provide a copy of the source code?
Developer of [the most common piece of software used to watch pirated videos] takes a stand against [copyringt enforcement tool]. Shock and awe.
You can't expect a company to make major changes to their online sales system to support 0.2% of the people that want to use it, even if you're IN that small minority. Be reasonable.
Besides that, a very large part of why the app store exists is to make money. (of course some is to add feature value to their hardware) They won't make money off this. So why should they do it if it's only going to cost them money? And the availability of free software on the store would devaluate the paid software on the store, losing Apple and the other devs money, to add what most people will not appreciate as a valuable addition. It's not good tradeoff in Apple's eyes.
It benefits the consumer, and the people such as those that run the VLC project, but it doesn't benefit Apple, and costs the other devs on the store money. And since it's Apple's decision, this is perfectly reasonable to expect.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Their [Apple's] obstinance prevents you from having this great software on Apple devices—not the GPL or the people enforcing it.
I have karma to burn, so I'm just going to say it: how is Apple expecting software distributed via their App Store to comply with App Store terms and conditions any more obstinate than expecting software distributed under the GPL to be distributed according to GPL conditions? Apple are under no obligation to carry software with what they consider inappropriate licensing on their store, any more than we are under any obligation to buy Apple hardware and apps from their store if we value the provisions of the GPL.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Merely distributing the source isn't enough; Apple would have to allow anyone to run anything on the iPhone, which has security implications beyond simply increasing user freedom. If you refrain from oversimplifying things, you'll see that there are reasons beyond simply wanting to restrict users just for the hell of it. Apple isn't forcing anyone to agree with their model; participation is entirely voluntary, involving purchase of an Apple device.
He thinks there's no real issue here.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1850340
So Apple *may* remove the VLC iPad app, because the people that own VLC tell Apple there's a license violation - knowing that in the past this means Apple will pull the app.
Isn't the definition of insanity repeating the same action and expecting different results?
If you want to end DRM, you need to support Apple since they are the only large company who has worked to end DRM and had some success. You need to keep things like VLC alive in the app store, so that users will be more tempted to use non-DRM downloads and consume them on modern computing devices.
But instead, the FSF is playing into the hands of the media companies by keeping things like VLC player out of the mainstream and attacking the only company with the same goals of ending DRM. Nice work FSF, this is seriously making me re-think my yearly donation...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This serves no purpose than to shove more OSS software out of the public's eye.
Maybe a few hippies can pat themselves on their back, but that's about it. It won't teach the consumer public anything.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
So, the non-article pretty much says "we complained about another GPL app in the store and rather than Apple change its entire licensing structure, it chose to remove the app in question and stop distributing it" - which is *exactly what the FSF were complaining about*.
* App is distributed on app store
* FSF sees it is GPL
* complains to Apple that it is not compatible with their licenses
* Apple takes it down (or it is suggested that Apple will go this route - there hasn't been a decision on VLC yet, this article is just speculating on what Apple will do and condemning them for a decision they have not yet made)
Really, what is the argument here? There is no justification for righteous indignation when Apple does exactly what it is asked to do. You seriously expect them to change their licensing to be compatible with GPL software? What world are they living in? The App Store is a well known closed ecosystem. This article is nothing but a petulant rant that attempts to apportion blame about "denying great software" to people on iOS devices because of "Apple's restrictions" - when it is just as clear that the restrictions go both ways. The FSF likes to point out that the GPL is incompatible with the App Store (and there's a nice little non-sequitur paragraph at the end with wild speculation that the new app store in 10.7 will be enormously locked down).
This cuts both ways.
The GPL is a marvellous thing, but there are some places it just cannot go, by nature of its restrictions; restrictions put in place to provide more freedom, ironically. This article is nothing more than an attempt to force Apple to deny its own freedom to choose what licenses to use for the App Store - if they happen to be incompatible with the GPL, then tough beans. They have as much right to choose as anyone using the GPL does.
If the lack of wholly GPL software on iOS bothers enough customers, there are other smartphone platforms that are known for not having such a tightly controlled app ecosystem.
Apple. Their house, their rules. Don't like it, go play at a friends house ( like android, or blackberry or cydia )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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...
The summary is just a paragraph copied from the article and surrounded by quote marks. We're all smart people around here; we can do better than this.
Future submitters: You're supposed to use your summary to catch our attention. At the minimum, you need to tell us what happened and hint at why it might be interesting to read.
Editors: A well-written summary carries more credibility than a copy-and-paste job. If you must approve a story that regurgitates whatever it links to, then why not preface it with something like "so-and-so quotes a provoking article from blah blah blah..." instead of "so-and-so writes..."?
GPL is worthless without a foundation of faith in humans... That is what makes the license go.
All of the actions you suggest would fail to cheapen the power of the GPL, but succeed in demeaning the community around it.
The original announcement says nothing about DRM. Nor do I recall reading anywhere else about Apple requiring DRM be included in products sold via the App Store. To me this looks like the FSF is hijacking the issue of GPL vs. Apple license.
It didn't have to be the VLC developers - it could have been anyone who posted it to the app store, because the GPL permits you to redistribute the software. It looks like it was a French company "Applidium" that posted it.
Alas, the restrictions placed on app store content by Apple are not compatible with the GPL ; those receiving the app cannot redistribute it and do not receive sources or an offer of sources (from Apple, who are the distributor - Applidium link to the the videolan.org git repository, which isn't necessarily where they host their source - presumably they tweak the sources for iOS but there's no sign of them offering those tweaks, even if that would satisfy the license which it doesn't - the distributor has to offer the sources).
Applidium have almost certainly benefited from getting their app store category link in front of the eyes of a lot more people who wanted VLC for their device.
Applidium may well be adhering to the license - you only have to distribute the changes you make to people receiving the software, so they may have sent the source for their iOS specific tweaks to VLC to Apple along with the binaries. But Apple are most certainly not adhering to the license, and Applidium shouldn't be blameless as they were almost certainly aware that Apple would breach the license as a result of them submitting the app.
How does that answer the Grand parent post? you have the sources. go ahead and modify them. nothing is stopping you.
You can even install and run it on an iphone via xcode apple freely provides. You can run it on any mac via the emulator apple freely provides. YOu can redistribute them at will.
Apple just won't sell it in their store for you.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Then stop writing everything in legalese. If the average consumer cannot read the gpl and understand it, then they will never understand why it's important to have free software. Only supreme eggheads and lawyers will get it, and shocking as it may be, you are in the minority. The majority just doesn't give a shit. So re write the gpl for normal people.
So I take it you're not going to vote any more ...
And you won't date because some time in the past you got dumped ...
And you won't post on slashdot because it doesn't change anything ...
Okay, seriously, the reason we try things over and over is because we HOPE that at some point, things will change. Other people will notice, take a stand, and progress is made - or at least we've met some new and interesting people :-)
FSF isn't keeping VLC out of the mainstream - Apple makes a point of not being "main-stream." Many of the people who buy Apple would shrivel up in horror if they ever thought their i{$WHATEVER} was mainstream.
-- Barbie
It's not about DRM on videos. It's about DRM on the app.
Developers may personally have a problem with DRM on content but the license does not - or it wouldn't be usable on projects like GPG.
The problem is that the terms of the GPL are not being met - the application cannot be redistributed by the recipients, and they are not receiving the sources for the application, or an offer to receive them from Apple. The distributor of software must meet these responsibilities - it's not sufficient to point to the original distributor of the sources and suggest that you get them from there (as the third party company who uploaded this app does).
FSF isn't keeping VLC out of the mainstream - Apple makes a point of not being "main-stream." Many of the people who buy Apple would shrivel up in horror if they ever thought their i{$WHATEVER} was mainstream.
You really think so?
You must not have been to an Apple store or college campus lately...
you have the sources. go ahead and modify them. nothing is stopping you.
Unless, of course, you obtained the software through the App Store...which is what this is all about. The App Store policies, the mandatory DRM, are the problem here.
You can even install and run it on an iphone via xcode apple freely provides
When last I checked, you had to pay Apple for this privilege; that seems to run afoul of the GPL in and of itself, at least in spirit. Again, though, the point here is about the App Store which has policies that are inherently incompatible with the GPL.
Palm trees and 8
the end user doesn't have any useful rights with GPL unless they are developer
The end user of a computer program distributed under the GNU GPL has the right to hire any developer to improve the program.
GPLv2 (the version VLC is under) doesn't forbid DRM. GPLv3 (which GNU Go is under) does that.
It forbids DRM on the application (or TiVo-ization) - measures that prevent modified versions of the code from running. These measures remove the freedom to modify the software to suit your needs, which is what the GPL intends to preserve.
It does NOT prevent you from implementing DRM systems using the code.
As the FAQ points out, DRM systems in GPL code are a little silly, because you must give the sources to application recipients, which means that cracked versions will emerge pretty quickly (and legally), but you can still do it, just like you can use GPL code to create baby-killing robot monsters or benevolent AIs that rule the planet with a fair and even hand.
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
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
The developer is at fault, not Apple. Apple is not party to the GPL terms just because a developer with a political agenda chooses to upload an application to the App Store. The developer is at fault for choosing a distribution medium for his software that is incompatible with GPL terms. It's not any more complicated than that.
Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
If you want to end DRM, you need to support Apple since they are the only large company who has worked to end DRM and had some success.
But they force all app store content to be DRMed, which is the root for FSF current trouble.
If Apple was anti-DRM indeed, they would allow distribution of non-DRMed application through the appstore.
When the iMac came out, it was explained as "individual Macintosh" as opposed to the "Power Macintosh" professional products. So Apple iOS might be understood to stand for "Individual Operating System".
There are a bunch of things wrong with this slashdot article and also with how the original VLC developers are handling this. It is easy to blame Apple for everything, but consider this:
* There are three parties here: The VLC Team that wrote the VLC code. The commercial iPhone developer Applidium, who turned VLC into an iPhone App. Apple, who is making the application available.
* Applidium submitted the application to the App Store. Apple approved the app. The VLC Team is sending a copyright infringement to Apple.
* VLC is licensed under the GPL2. If the GPL2 license is incompatible with the App Store then why have the developers of VLC for the iPhone (Applidium) submitted the app? They should never have done that in the first place. They are the ones to blame for uploading software that cannot exist on the App Store under its current terms.
* The application is currently on the store, which means Apple has approved it. So obviously from Apple's perspective there is no problem here.
* Apple has actually changed the rules to accomodate for GPL2 licensed software after the GNU Go debacle: if a proper license is already attached to the application then Apple does not enforce its own default EULA for apps. This change was made in June. A month after the GNU Go thing happened.
* Apple kicked out GNU Go because the FSF requested them to do that. People keep screaming that Apple removes all GPL software, but this is simply because people are telling Apple to do that. What else do you expect them to do?
* It is probably fair to assume that Apple will remove the software after the copyright infringement claims made by the VLC team. But this really has NOTHING to do with the GPL. This is simply how Apple reacts to these kind of allegations. They remove the software and let both parties know so that the parties (in this case VLC Team vs Applidium) can work out a deal or whatever.
Diplomacy has never been a strong point of the VLC team and because of this in the end will lose:
* End users will not be able to use VLC on their iPhones and iPads.
* Applidium just wasted a huge amount of time on this project.
* The VLC team will not have an opportunity to start a dialog with Apple to maybe relax the rules.
* Apple will lose an interesting app on their store.
Yay for GNU GPL zealots.
DRM is not the (only) issue as far as I can see. IIRC VLC is under GPLv2 which does not have the explicit anti-DRM (tivoisation) clause that v3 of the GPL has. While it can be said that GPLv2 *did* have such an intention, there is no explicit wording in there strong enough to stand up to legal attack.
The problem I see (and AINAL, nor have I read the GPL in any detail for some years, so research this before taking my thoughts as meaningful) is that the GPL forbids removing rights granted by the GPL. This means that once someone agrees to distribute stuff under the terms of the GPL they can not be blocked from doing so in future - the problem here is Apple's kill switch. To comply with the GPL AppStore would have to make an exception to their own rules such that GPL licensed code is never subject to the kill switch, and as Apple are unlikely to make any such exception AppStore is, and is likely to remain, incompatible with software distributed only under the terms of the GPL. Multi-licensed code for which the GPL is one of the available options should be fine though, if at least one of the available licenses is not incompatible with AppStore's rules.
So I take it you're not going to vote any more ...
I vote because I get some personal enjoyment out of it, but really, when has an individual vote ever mattered? Almost never. You could vote your entire life or never vote your entire life and chances are, nothing would be the slightest bit different.
A friend once cited a study or some such to me that showed you were more likely to be hit by a car on the way to your polling place than to have your vote make a difference.
Why did these guys upload VLC to the app store, knowing the conditions for doing so, only to complain when Apple put the same restrictions on it that they do with every other app?
As much as I hate Apple's controlfreak nature.. I like my iPhone. I would like to be able to run VLC on it. This is.. counterproductive, because all Apple will do is remove the software from the store if it can't be distributed on their terms. Apple doesn't care about it's developers or customers in this regard.
If you want to end DRM, you need to support Apple since they are the only large company who has worked to end DRM and had some success.
Support the abusers because they're the only ones who've shown any restraint in their abuse. You're either trolling or suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
So I take it you're not going to vote any more ...
I vote because I get some personal enjoyment out of it, but really, when has an individual vote ever mattered? Almost never. You could vote your entire life or never vote your entire life and chances are, nothing would be the slightest bit different.
A friend once cited a study or some such to me that showed you were more likely to be hit by a car on the way to your polling place than to have your vote make a difference.
Depends on the recount laws. Here, for example, any time the vote is within 100 votes, there's an automatic recount, so each one of those 100 votes can make a difference. Based on that alone, I think your friend's analysis is slightly flawed - and I bet you still look before crossing a street :-)
-- Barbie
> Isn't the definition of insanity repeating the same action and expecting different results?
Why would it be insanity? They are aware of the fact, do not expect different results, saddened by it, but that does not alter the fact that they, the authors have a say how their work can be distributed.
> If you want to end DRM, you need to support Apple since they are the only large company who has worked to end DRM and had some success. You need to keep things like VLC alive in the app store, so that users will be more tempted to use non-DRM downloads and consume them on modern computing devices.
> But instead, the FSF is playing into the hands of the media companies by keeping things like VLC player out of the mainstream and attacking the only company with the same goals of ending DRM.
I beg to disagree. Apple has worked to end DRM when it is not *their* DRM and when it harms their business. They protect their own DRM as much as they can. In fact, in this very case the app store's distribution/license rules are the restriction and not what the app may play. Also, I don't see the logic in why would VLC in the app store tempt users to use non-DRM downloads. Non-DRM downloads play on anything (provided the codec is supported).
> Nice work FSF,
Indeed. I like it when they force companies to abide by the license terms.
> this is seriously making me re-think my yearly donation...
That is your decision.
The license they chose (GPL version 3) does not give Apple the ability to distribute this software. Had they chosen to stay with GPL Version 2, there would be no problem. If the actual authors of all the code wanted, they could agree to dual license it for distribution on the iOS platform. It is their own damn fault, not Apple's. The person submitting the application new better but deliberately chose to create controversy.
If all of the contributors agreed, there would be no problem as the GPL does not supersede copyright. It cannot extinguish the copyright of each contributor to the code base. They could simply relicense the iOS code branch under a different license.
As an end user, I am so pissed at this grandstanding and attempt to entrap that I want to know where I can sign up to sue not only these VLC asswipes but RMS and the GNU for creating such a discriminatory, viral and counter productive license. It does not further the idea of sharing and collaboration. It is an idealogical document.
Honestly, why should they give a frak if software is distributed in a plain zip file, gzip, encrypted zip, rar, dmg, encrypted DMG or DRM'ed iOS package. It does not matter to the end user and you are allowed to sell GPL'ed software. Dictating how software is package should NOT be a part of the GPL. It is discriminator towards certain platforms and completely counter productive.
Perhaps RMS and his co-horts should try leaving academia and actually "WORKING" for a living in a company that exists to earn a "PROFIT".
Let us not forget that the GPL is a license for the CODE and not the binary. It is not an END USER AGREEMENT. What other licenses other than the COMMIE GNU ones dictate how a binary is compiled and packaged? Do other licenses forbid RPM packages or mention anything about the binary? No.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Apple will just delete it and rightfully so, if apple wishes to run a closed shop that is their business. I have a iPhone and happen to love it, I have a developers license which allows me to install and run just about anything I want. I really do not loose sleep over the fact that apple controls their app distribution channel. In fact if I want this media player on my phone I will just compile and install it nothing at all stopping me from doing it.
Got Code?
Actually it's the distributor's rules that are depriving users of useful programs and it's Apple that is committing copyright infringement. If they want to create monopolistic app stores, it's not a copyright holder's job to cave into their desire. The user can be taught about this issue, news stories like these and user experiences losing apps (Apple has the controls to remove/add apps as per their will) create learning opportunities. Just like Amazon's example with the Swindle did.
Digital Citizen
Is this the final proof that Apple is not compatible with (GPL'ed) OSS?
I sincerely hope so, because then we can finally lose the fanboys and talk about more interesting stuff here.
And maybe for those occasions where somebody still has an urge to talk about Apple, we can change the icon into something borg-like, as we have for M$.
By the way... if only BSD had a GPL license...
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
The contract terms for developers of iOS software attempt to make this more restrictive than any other platform. Most of the other platforms wouldn't even dare to try this. A better way to fight it would be to support alternative app stores for iOS devices, where they don't have the problem. Let's not adopt a scorched earth policy here. What we want is freer devices, the problem seems to be freer devices do not even get made. They either do not have the marketshare, or the app stores do not get built. Maybe the fsf needs to build one.
So here's what I've understand:
First of all, the developer is pointing out that the licensing may be incompatible and then complains that Apple is "kicking out GPL'ed" apps. I wouldn't describe it "kicking out" when the developer is kinda asking Apple to remove the app. What Apple isn't doing is changing their entire licensing agreements to suit this one developer.
Second, the developer is assuming that the Mac App store will have DRM. I've heard conflicting stories. Some say yes. Some say no. Anybody have access to the Apple Mac App Store Agreement that can shed some light on this.
Third, is it me or if the VLC developer has issues with the Mac App store, they can simply choose not to use it? Apple isn't removing the other ways to get an application (online, retail, etc); they are simply introducing a new one. Remember iOS devices are locked in that Apple has removed the ability for users to access the file system on the devices (without jailbreaking). With OS X, full access to the file system would make it extremely difficult to lock down the system. The Mac App store launches in 90 days so unless there are some major changes to Snow Leopard, it is highly unlikely. With Lion Apple might shift towards that direction but until that's down the road.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Dumb argument. Candidates change, making the "same action" quite different. Unless you mean to suggest that a vote for Barack Obama is the same as a vote for George Bush, and a vote for Sarah Palin is the same as a vote for Nancy Pelosi.
If you dated a girl and got dumped, then started dating that same girl again... yeah, you'd be kind of stupid to not expect similar outcomes. That doesn't mean that dating Mary will turn out the same as dating Lori.
About the only reasonable statement you've made here. This isn't a place where people discuss things, it's a place where people shout at one another... so yeah, I don't expect anything written here to change minds. It's just fun to shout.
Proving that you very much do NOT understand Apple's business model. How many millions of iPods have they sold? iPads? iPhones? iMacs? Apple is certainly 'mainstream' by just about any measure of popularity. I submit you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody with a TV who isn't at least aware of the Apple brand. Apple does not avoid being 'mainstream,' they simply aren't willing to whore out their product design philosophy to make a quick buck. If everybody in the world woke up tomorrow and said, "I'm buying a Mac today, I'm done with this (Linux|Windows) crap," do you think Steve Jobs would be upset?
I suspect you'd be surprised at exactly how small a number of people would *actually* be upset with this. Maybe you should examine your prejudices more closely.
"If you want to end DRM, you need to support Apple since they are the only large company who has worked to end DRM and had some success"
Really? I guess that you can define "large". And I guess you can define "worked to end DRM" rather than simply "never had it".
As to making an effort to "end DRM" -- Apple is the biggest supplier at 70% of online music sales. And, data shows that customers (not being that stupid) buy 4 times the music if there is no DRM.
So its natural that Apple wants to remove DRM. But, honestly?, they started it. At a non-DRM 4x sales multiplier, it was really only a matter of time before they would have lost the sales lead UNLESS they removed DRM.
Personally, I don't care if DRM is ended or not. Technically, DRM can't work, unless it is coupled with legal measures. However, you cannot follow GPL licensing AND apply those measures. Not legally, anyway. So, GPL software must be removed from the Apple App Store. Unless source is installed in a usable manner by the Application, which would mean that a USB/wireless file share would need to be installed, along with the application, or that this would be available for free from the App store at the same time that the binary application is approved. Or that the App store would have a secondary distribution channel for source. None of which exists; so no GPL software.
The FSF MUST follow this. If you think otherwise, please lobby to have the GPL changed. Note that I have never released my software under the GPL for such reasons. I much prefer public domain, or I retain all rights, forcing a negotiation for specific purposes, or a "free to distribute if no money is involved" style license.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Apple has had a monopoly on it's App Store because, it was pretty much the only game in town. Now that Apple and the iPhone are starting to get some competition through Android, it will be interesting to see what happens. Apple once had a pretty much monopoly with downloading music through iTunes. Just about everything was DRM'd. Once some competition came in, they dropped their DRM to stay competitive.
While the change to Apple's music model and their App Store aren't 100% analogous, they aren't the only smart phone/platform in town any more. Now that they have some real competition, like their music policy, if they don't stay competitive with what the market demands, they will lose sales of devices. It doesn't matter if there is an app for that or not, if every one else also has an app for it, too.
If you want to end DRM, you need to support Apple since they are the only large company who has worked to end DRM and had some success.
You're an idiot. The whole Apple Store is DRM.
The team submitted VLC to the App Store while fully aware of Apple's draconian DRM policy. There should be no surprise that the software is delivered in exactly the same manner as all of the other apps on the site, so submitting it (and presumably agreeing to Apple's legal terms in the process) and then turning around and saying, "but it's GPL'd, so you're being bad" puts you in a challenging position. It doesn't do users any good if Apple responds by saying, "You're right, it's GPL'd so we can't distribute it in our locked down framework. We're removing it immediately."
There, fixed that for ya.
you had me at #!
Holy crap. An FOSS package management system for Windows or Mac would be amazing.
A different VLC developer disagrees and says the FSF is acting in bad faith and FUD.
Back in May, when the FSF complained about GNU Go on the App Store, the App Store was in fact definitely incompatible with GPL software. Apple makes copies and distributes them, so Apple needs permission of the copyright owner.
To get that permission under GPL, you have to obey GPL, including the part about not placing any additional restrictions on people you distribute copies to. Apple's end user terms of service placed many GPL-incompatible restrictions on the people Apple distributes to, so no GPL permission for Apple. If the developer owned all the GPL code in his application, then the act of submitting it to the store gives implicit (and there is probably something in the developer agreement that makes it explicit) permission to Apple to distribute. However, if the developer is using GPL code from other people, then there is a problem.
About a month after the FSF published their detailed explanation of the incompatibility, Apple changed the end user terms of service and the change appears to have removed the problem. It now says that if an app is covered by a EULA (and the GPL would count as a EULA, I believe) then that EULA governs. If there is no EULA, then Apple's default license governs, and it is Apple's default license that has the things the FSF objects to.
There was similar language before the June change, except that there was a set of "Usage Rules" and Apples terms states that those applied in addition to any EULA for the particular software, and it was the usage rules that contained the GPL-incomplatible stuff. With the June change, it seems that if the software has a EULA, the EULA is all that applies.
They never wanted DRM to start with, but were forced to use it if they wanted content. The plan was always to remove it as soon as they could (by changing the deal with the content providers).
Actually Apple is one of, if not THE, biggest pushers of DRM today. Everything you buy from the app store is DRMed.
This a hugely dangerous trend, that people (aka sheeple) are so accepting of DRM if you paint it a nice colour and make it glossy.
Apple is not fighting DRM. Apple just does not want others besides themselves to have any rights.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
If Apple were against DRM, then the VLC makers would not take issue with the app's distribution on the store.
If you want to end DRM, you need to support Apple since they are the only large company who has worked to end DRM and had some success.
You're an idiot. The whole Apple Store is DRM.
For an idiot, he seems to know a lot more than you do. Music on the Apple Store is completely DRM free, and has been for a long time. This came about because, back in the day when every music store that offered music from the major labels had DRM, Steve Jobs wrote an open letter to the labels, saying that they should drop DRM. EMI immediately agreed, and Apple started offering DRM-free music from EMI. The other labels called Jobs an idiot, and Warner went so far as saying they would never remove DRM.
The Apple/EMI experiment showed that Jobs was right and that removing DRM from music was a good idea. The other labels then came around, and removed DRM on all the stores that sold their music EXCEPT for Apple. No official reason for holding out on Apple was ever given. The common speculation was that either they wanted to wait a while so they wouldn't look completely foolish for reacting so negatively to Jobs' suggestion and then adopting it in a relatively short time, or that they hoped that by having Apple be the only major store with DRM they could put Apple at a competitive disadvantage and get some concessions out of Apple. Eventually, the labels did allow Apple to go DRM-free, although Apple at the same time gave the labels more price control (that's why the "every song is $0.99" thing ended and prices went up).
If it wasn't for Steve Jobs urging the labels to drop DRM, it is highly likely that the major labels would still be requiring DRM on their music at all the major stores.
It's not package management, but Ninite makes installing free software much more convenient.
A latent existence
It's called the app STORE. Think food bank vs grocery store. Why the fuck should they put free software ANYWHERE near the app store is beyond me. Would you offer free pizza in your pizzeria next to your 2$ by the slice? I don't think so! Distribute your own shit in torrents. Otherwise you miss the point of both
1. Free/GPL software.
2. A store.
Geez the nerve of some people! Thinking they deserve everything and don't stop to use common sense!
If GPL had balls/ovum they woulda made their own device with all GPL parts in it and make their own app bank (since it's not selling can't call it a store). There is a need to make a hardware platform using the same community developed method. That would be a bloody miracle though. The state of OSHW is not great. Like the sad Open Source Hardware Central Bank, that is basically a site of CG devices not yet made looking for funding. Wow talk about sad. The only real source of Open source seems to be university's which are funded by government and big business. There is a good reason GPL was also called the MIT license. So most open projects worth spit are payed for by the government or corporations. Only the strength of the legal writing in the actual license keeps the software 'free'. IMO.
http://www.oshwbank.org/
In order to redistribute GPL software, isn't Apple asked to spend more money? It has to have the ability to turn off and on the encryption, based on the license. It has to, to some degree, vet that the code is licensed correctly, or that non-GPL apps doesn't include GPLed elements. If they distribute anything that was not properly licensed, they have to mitigate the infringement, which, as a start, will be a recall off of the mobile devices and a refund, which is an ugly pr event, ask Amazon about "1984." What about the costs of hosting source code? Isn't a lot of GPL software offered at no charge, so there's not a lot of offsetting revenue for the extra bother? Licensing nuance is inside baseball. I doubt there would be significant additional demand for Apple devices for GPL code being allowed in the app store. Were Apple to allow GPL apps, Freedom as in Free adherents would still be cheesed off that Apple approves each app and/or that device owners cannot install any thing they want, except via unsupported self-modification
The developer chooses a license that suits them, and, right on, dig it, God bless 'em, and more power to them. Potential downstream users look at licenses and, if it doesn't make sense in the totality of what they are trying to do, either to pursue happiness or a dollar, they walk away from the code. Apple looks at GPL code and says, it's not worth the effort. They have the freedom to make that choice. Device buyers have the freedom to consider the intermediate's choices when they choose devices.
On further reading, the VLC makers themselves think the FSF is being foolish in this regard - it's the FSF alone that is asking this license to be enforced in this way.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Really? I guess that you can define "large"
First you have to give the name of a company of any size that actually forced an industry to remove DRM when there was DRM before.
Apple was the company that talked EMI into giving up DRM, when the sky did not burn nor the oceans boil, other music companies followed suit.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Free software has a set of rules and it works. App Store has a different set of rules and it works. Participate in either as you see fit. Don't try and change one into the other. I am tired of this kind of totalitarianism coming from free software people, demanding other people embrace their ideology. Apple didn't trick you into submitting an app. In the same way that you should agree to comply with the GPL license if you want to use some GPL code, you should comply with App Store licensing if you want to use App Store. Or don't participate if you can't play by the rules. Don't show up to a baseball game in your hockey gear and demand to play.
Apple participates in free and open source software in many cases and they give a lot and they get a lot. They have also created a commercial market for "pop apps" where that make sense, and enabled many, many people who have never before installed and used native software to do so. We don't have to wonder if its success is based on the way it is structured, because we have Android Market to look at, where piracy has destroyed the ability of software developers to fund their projects.
In short: STFU.
They just prevent you from upgrading to the latest version of Android to get the latest features. Unless you jailbreak and root your device that is, which isn't that much of an improvement over iOS.
WTF? It's Apple's draconian policies and rules which is preventing users from useful apps. And you are blaming FSF for that.
Man, RDF is really strong with you.
...obviously?
I actually meant the App Store. The iPhone and iPad are locked-down and DRM-laden (notice how the story under discussion has nothing do with music), and there isn't any evil music corporation that Jobs can point his finger at.
Each developer decides whether to distribute their source and how much to charge for their app (there are thousands of free apps). So what is your point?
That's interesting facts about the changing terms you're pointing out.
However, you should not necessarily confuse GPLv2 for a EULA. Or that would really depend on how you define an End-User License Agreement (EULA).
IANAL, but from what I've read, generally, GPLv2/v3 isn't considered an EULA in the proprietary legal-speak sence, since there is no obligations that you as a *user* of the software have to agree upon before using it.
The GPLv2/v3 will grant you as a GPL software *user* a set of *rights* though, which may be beneficial to you (the "4 freedoms", ref FSF). But this isn't anything you have to agree upon -- you don't even have to take advantage of them.
However, you only have to *agree* with the GPLv2/v3 license when you *distribute* the GPL licensed software (this may happen some time after you have used it, or it may never happen at all). You can use the software all that you want, but you are not allowed to re-distribute it unless you oblige to the GPL license term (which in effect ensures that the down-stream receivers of the software you distribute also receives the same essential 4 freedoms as you were entitled to).
So, if it were a legal cage battle on this topic among true lawyers, it isn't obvious that the GPLv2 (nor v3) would be legally classified as a "End-User License Agreement".
Apple fanboys try to cast anything not bought from Apple as pirated.
Then it only seems fitting that Apple shares Steve Jobs with Disney, the primary corporate force behind the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.
Another is not to develop for iOS and pick Android instead.
Yesterday, I was in a Best Buy store and a RadioShack store. I saw plenty of Android counterparts to the iPhone but no Android counterpart to the iPod touch. Do you know of an "Android pod touch" for sale to the general public in the United States?
Granted, some don't have the app store or an old version of android, but not all.
I didn't see any button along the left side of Amazon's search result page to narrow the results by Android OS version or by Android Market access.
Last week I bought an Archos 5
Might you happen to know of any U.S. chain that stocks them, so that I can try an Archos 5 before I buy it? I didn't see one in Best Buy yesterday. One advantage of locked-down hardware is that big-box electronics stores that sell iPod products tend to have a display model.
One of the most useful apps I've downloaded, but the latest version is a bit unstable. And now it's likely to be pulled before it gets an update. Gutted...
Sure, the GPL clashes with the app store rules, and it's difficult to blame any one party if the app is kicked....but I don't really care. If this app gets kicked, and an update is released through other channels, it's the final straw - I'll be jailbreaking.
Apple, 'The Other Microsoft" wants cake that's not theirs and eat it too,Well congrats for VLC standing up. Hi-Ho-Silver - Away!
Apple fanbois with modpoints!? What a surprise!
The FSF need to stop spreading FUD and outright lies about their own license.
RMS and his cohorts have done more to damage the general OSS movement with their radical FOSS brand than MSFT did through SCO.
They are attacking a company that has done more for open source than a lot of companies. Consider their work on Webkit which forms the base of not only Safari but webOS (formerly Palm and how HP), webkit browers on android, Nokia and Blackberry. They also released released Bonjour, Quicktime Streaming Server, the base of OS X (Darwin), CUPS as well as a bunch of contributions to various open source projects. What has RMS done lately other than complain?
http://www.opensource.apple.com/
http://www.apple.com/opensource/
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
And you think that matters to consumers?
"Consumer" is a loaded and confusing word. Did you mean it in the economic sense or in the sense of home users? I will grant that the ability to hire third-party support doesn't matter much to home users, who consume software solely as a means to home entertainment. But it matters to business users, who consume software as a means to producing something else using said software.
Awesome. I wish I'd known about that 3 weeks ago when I was setting up my new PC, or 2 weeks ago when my endless tinkering crashed Windows 7 and I was re-setting up my new PC. :)
Why would anyone want to pay for hardware that was designed not with the consumer in mind, but fleecing the consumer for every penny it can suck from a user's wallet?
The difference here is that Tivo did not add any extra restrictions in the license, they just added technical restrictions in the hardware that prevented the user from exercising their rights under the GPL. Apple is adding extra restrictions in the license that the software is distributed under, as well as technical restrictions in iTunes to prevent you installing more than 5 copies. The technical restrictions might not fall foul of the GPL v2, provided they are implemented in iTunes software not in the GPL'ed software itself. But the license restrictions certainly do.
The iPhone was never the only smartphone. They did not introduce the category. RIM and Nokia had smartphones for years before Apple did.
Actually, Movist is so much better. xD
While true, the RIM and Nokia had smartphones prior to the iPhone, Apple took it to a whole new level and it entered the public's consciousness.
I don't equate "mainstream" with "iPhone" -- certainly iPhone is a mainstream device, but I don't consider not being in the App Store as being "out of the mainstream."
I don't see how it helps the "no DRM" cause to take a GPL'd program, coat it with DRM, and then sell it on a locked device without any legal or technical ability to modify or redistribute the program.
Sure Apple are working to end DRM'd music, but they're one of the biggest supporters of DRM'd software. I'm pretty sure the Free Software Foundation is more concerned with the latter.
Lol.
Why would a GPL licensed program appear in an Apple store? They know they cannot 'make available' the modified binary without license. And the GPL definitely won't give them the rights.
As we read, this isn't the first case.
So, this is willful copyright infringement.
The solution is easy: GPL'd programs cannot be sold for closed systems, since the end-user wouldn't be able to modify and run them.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Barbie,
your final argument is about 3-5 years out of date...
You could ask that of your iPhone. Is it a 3G or 3GS? Because it may or may not be upgradeable, depending on version.
Because, you know, the definition is about the hardware used rather than the software within (which is Android). Your Windows Media Server uses DRM'd components to lock down your computer so it isn't upgradeable but it still uses the same Windows OS that your upgradeable desktop uses.
Locking down, for Android, is a function of the handset provider, not the application.
Locking down, for an iPhone, is a function of the handset provider and, since this is the same one as makes the application, it IS an iPhone problem.
Apple's pirating VLC! Someone call the MPAA!
nobody is forcing the schools to use iPads, nor forcing students to go to those schools that do [use iPads]
If a public school adopts Apple iProducts, then state compulsory education laws require students to use the devices.
Yes, and scroll down to the part about "Installation Information" to see the legalese that this part of the preamble explains.
Dumb argument. Candidates change, making the "same action" quite different. Unless you mean to suggest that a vote for Barack Obama is the same as a vote for George Bush, and a vote for Sarah Palin is the same as a vote for Nancy Pelosi.
In United States politics, both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have the goal of expanding the exclusive rights of incumbent entertainment publishers at the expense of the public. See the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998: the 105th House and Senate passed them by voice vote implying greater than 80 percent assent and therefore bipartisan support, and the Democratic President signed them rather than sending them back for a roll-call veto override vote. I believe the ultimate cause of this is the MPAA's role in helping candidates get elected, which arises from a conflict of interest between television news organizations and the movie studios that share a corporate parent.
But instead, the FSF is playing into the hands of the media companies by keeping things like VLC player out of the mainstream and attacking the only company with the same goals of ending DRM. Nice work FSF, this is seriously making me re-think my yearly donation...
This is the problem with an organisation who has a zealot as its founder: They tend to view compromise for the greater good as a bad thing so they end up marginalised.
In my opinion the most important thing in any disagreement is to try and meet the other side halfway. There will always be items you cannot possibly compromise on, but you often need to examine your own position and try and decide on some points that are more flexible.
If you are not able to do this and insist that all your points are inflexible then the chances of you winning any concessions from the opposing side pretty much drop to zero immediately.
I dont read
Got any proof?
And no, Steve saying that it was the evil labels that made them do the drm doesn't count. Apple is still pro-DRM where it matters to them (apps, movies, books, even their own ipod-connector etc.). The plan for Apple is to make money, and competition will change the scenery by introducing alternatives. Hopefully.
GNU has rules, Apples has rules. And when they don't combine Apple has to changes its rules.
Kind of strange. Seems that GNU could change its rules too.
It's time to 'port' VLC to a BSD style license.
J.
Both parties also oppose murder, rape, and theft.
But in both cases, their opposition to theft extends to a conflation of theft with infringement. See the No Electronic Theft Act.
I know you're not naive enough to suggest that a single issue where they overlap makes them substantially the same.
By no means did I intend to imply that copyrights and patents are the only issues where the Republican and Democratic platforms overlap. They're just the ones closest to the topic of the featured article. Others exist, such as the size of the federal budget: both want to make it bigger in different ways (defense under GOP; entitlements under Dems).
http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-November/077457.html
Android market
Unlike phones, Archos products don't have the Android Market. Instead, they have AppsLib. Is isyncr also on AppsLib?
Did your Archos 5 come with Android Market? No. iPod touch running iOS 2 or newer comes with App Store.
Is it upgradable from the Android 1.6 that came on it to Android 2.x? No. iPod touch hardware version 1 can be upgraded to iOS 3, and versions 2 and newer can be upgraded to iOS 4.
Can I buy one in the same place? No. The closest counterpart to Circuit City as of today is Best Buy. A Best Buy store that I checked two days ago had Archos 7 and no other sizes, but I've been given a tip to look for Archos 43 next time I'm at Sears.
The iPod connector is not anything to do with DRM. It's a hardware connector - a documented hardware connector that is standard across all iPods (since it was introduced - obviously the original iPod has a 6 pin FW connector). There's no DRM involved - the signals across it are not encrypted in any way, there are no keys to control it, it is not obfuscated at all, as all the pins are documented and explained in Apple's literature for anyone making a device that interfaces with the iPod. The software that goes with that (inside the iPod) is also documented.
You are mistaking what DRM actually is, which seems to be common in many of these discussions. The 30 pin dock connector may be proprietary (ie, you need a licence fee to use it), but this is no different to many other hardware connectors - the USB one, for example (which is on the other end of the 30 pin cable, funnily enough). Just because it is a proprietary connector does not mean it has anything to do with DRM.
The apps are not DRM'ed either - they are simple zip files with an application bundle inside them, much like an actual OS X app (except those are not compressed) containing the assets and the binary and any other files needed.
Movies are still DRM encumbered because without it, there would be no content - the movie and TV studios will not provide the content without DRM on it. It's much like the situation with music a few years ago. No DRM, no content.
Can you guess where this is going with books?
For things entirely in Apple's control, DRM is conspicuously absent - the OS X install disc has no encryption on it, nor does it even need a serial number or any sort of activation. It just installs. The only barrier to installing it on a non-Mac is a plain text file that says "please don;t steal OS X" that you can remove and then reburn the image (it's not a special "non standard" DVD that can't be easily copied in a home DVD burner) so you can install it on any machine.
It also doesn't care how many times you install it on Macs in your home (although technically you are supposed to buy 1 licence for each machine, there is no actual enforcement).
The original iMac (the coloured one) ran on the commercial "Rip, Mix, Burn" which is as strong a promotion of Fair Use in a commercial that I have ever seen - the thrust of the commercial was to rip all your CDs into iTunes, arrange them into playlists of your choice, and then make CDs of them to listen to wherever you wanted (disclaimer for slashdot: Apple didn't invent this, but they made it super easy to do in iTunes for the common man). No DRM in sight.Just strong encouragement to do what you want with your music.
OF COURSE Apple's plan is to make money - and they have been one of the few to realise that the best way to do that is to *give customers what they want* - they wanted DRM-free music, and they knew this, but were unable to deliver and had to compromise (since they do not control the music itself, and had to convince the music industry that DRM-free was a viable business model). So, they put in the weakest DRM they could get away with, and provided a way in iTunes to strip it off by burning to Audio CD, which they strongly encouraged you to do every time you downloaded songs. It wasn't ideal (since you'd have to re-encode and thus lose a little quality, but the Audio CD itself was indistinguishable from the downloaded tracks).
I don't think any piece of Apple-provided evidence is going to convince you, but the history is right there.
I don't think any piece of Apple-provided evidence is going to convince you, but the history is right there.
Yeah, and you just proved it - the dock connector is fine if you just want analog audio out of it. If you want the fancy features there is a license fee to pay. And yes, there is a sort of drm there - I have seen a car adapter which worked just fine on previous generation iPod but connecting a new generation one shows just "incompatible device" warning on the iPod. And there is simply nothing that could have been changed to the actual functionality - just a missing license fee.
And you are right about Apple giving what customers want - unfortunately for me that is dumbed down restricted software in a nice and shiny package. But I'm ok with that - what I'm not ok is that you among others give Apple the credit of drm-free music which they do not deserve - we got that since Amazon and others came along and right holders relized that competition is good and drm-free distribution is one way to do that.
Apple does just what sells, today it might be drm-movies and series, tomorrow it might be something else. And they are good at it at least for couple of last years.
This was in Las Vegas, but I suspect other stores would have them as well.
My experience differed from yours. I tried three different stores (Best Buy, RadioShack, and T-Mobile) in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and none had an N900 for me to try. Or should I just plan on buying five products and eating the return shipping and 15% restocking fee for the four that I don't like?
No, the licence fee must be paid to use the connector - ie, if you make something that physically has the connector present (like a docking station) - if you want to implement the protocol, no one is stopping you - my car's head unit has a standard USB port on the back that controls an iPod via the accessory protocol.
Fees for connectors are not unique to the dock connector - the USB port is similarly covered, as is the firewire port, and many others.
The things that have changed between iPod generations can vary a lot - not just the the license fee. You misunderstand what the fee is and when it is paid - it is when the device is *made*, so attaching a new generation iPod to that stereo and it not working has nothing to do with a fee not being paid. The stereo manufacturer pays when the device is made initially to ship a device with the dock connector on it (although in my experience with most car head units, they don;t actually have a dock connector, so the fee is irrelevant anyway - they just implement the iPod accessory protocol, which rarely changes but has between some iPods. It underwent a change when Apple dropped firewire from the iPod lineup, for example, and had a couple of changes between the 4G and 5G iPod I believe. A software update for the head unit usually fixes this. It has absolutely nothing to do with not paying a fee. The protocol has largely remained unchanged, but some parts of it have been changed or extended as the iPod line has grown. Some Sony head units, for example, can now charge later generation models (5G and up) that they couldn't before, and things like the iPod Touch and iPhone can attempt to negotiate with the device they connect to to determine what version of of the Accessory Protocol they are using and fall back into legacy mode if necessary. My iPhone does this when I connect it to my car's head unit, although sometimes it gets stuck trying to use the newer protocol (since the upgrade to iOS 4) and complains about incompatible head unit, but unplugging and replugging refreshes it and it drops back to the old protocol and works fine. (I am pretty sure this is down to performance issues on iOS 4 on the 3G iPhone, with a reply on the bus timing out when the phone is connected "cold" to the car. Unplugging and immediately replugging instantly fixes it).
Do you realise why Amazon was able to sell DRM free music in the first place? The iTunes store. There is *no way* the Amazon mp3 store would have happened without the iTunes store. It was a response to the music industry realising it had all its eggs in one basket (the iTunes store) and thus was limited in its negotiating power for price controls (they wanted variable pricing from the start). The mp3 model from Amazon would never have been on the table at all were it not for the iTunes store - which was also trying to renegotiate for DRM free (in exchange for variable pricing).
When the industry realised that online music sales actually did work as a business model, and that if they weren't careful the entire market would belong to the iTMS, they started distributing via other channels - Amazon was one of these.
Had the iTunes music store never existed, and the industry content to stay they way it had always been, there would never have been an Amazon mp3 store.
The result of all this is that there is now consumer choice in the online download market for music - DRM-free aac files from iTunes, playable on any device that supports aac, or mp3 files from Amazon, playable on any device that supports mp3. Both are patented formats, but both are open standards.
Taking a hardline stance against non-open software will result in nobody using any open software, which will result in nobody caring about open software standards, which will mean that there will be less and less interest in open software, eventually leading to the death of it.
The way to take over the world is to compromise. Compromise is at the heart of every human interaction, even if we don't consciously think about it. Therefore, supporting a company that has made significant compromises to remove DRM from the entire marketplace is supporting a non-DRM stance. Insisting that they must do everything the way you want means that they will ignore your demands, leaving your cause no more accepted in the world.
Linus knows this, which is why he's okay with Tivo-ization of the Linux kernel. Because even though people aren't behaving exactly the way you want, insisting that they do will only ensure that they will resist you completely.
Regarding the dock connector: Lots of hand-waving.
Yes, fees are not unique Apple is no saint here. They could have made interoperability easiear and cheaper but chose not to - because of business reasons. Be it control over image and who make what accessories or just plain greed to milk money over others - I don't know.
And I do realize that Amazon mp3 store would not necessarily have existed if iTMS wasn't the huge success it was/is. But on the other hand - Apple could have said "screw you guys, we are not selling drm-music" - instead they said that it is ok and music industry later on thought that just maybe competition would be nice and drm was one bargaining tool and game changed.
Technology or licenses is not the key here - being at the right place at the right time is. Look at Napster (the subscription one which came after the lawsuits) or Yahoo Music - they practically died and still Spotify (I live in Northern Europe so that is what is use but I have heard US has last.fm and other similar services) now grows.
What bothers me is that people keep saying that Apple is somehow open or embraces sharing - yes, they have their merits (the mention about OS X install is good, I'm sick and tired of Microsoft's WGA crap) but they really are no different when it actually comes to what makes them money. They close, limit and charge license fees just like anyone else.
I don't consider not being in the App Store as being "out of the mainstream."
This would be true if there were an "Unknown sources" option to add packages obtained elsewhere to the device without adding $297 to the cost over the expected three-year service life of the device.
With Droids, iPhones, tablets, cellphones all so powerful now, it's CRAZY to spend $100+ on a calculator like that.
In fact, phones are so powerful that students aren't allowed to carry them into the testing room. That's why TI has the education market sewn up: its products are just powerful enough to work the problems without being powerful enough to cheat.
The Dock connector is the shape it is to enable it to fit on the iPod - other than that, it's standard and has been since it was included.There's nothing secret or encrypted about it. If you want to use it, it's well documented (hardware and software) for your theoretical device to interface with the iPod. No "hand waving" or anything there.
They get a lot of bad press, and people like to sweep some of the good things they are doing under the rug to concentrate on the walled garden and app store, which only pertain to the iOS ecosystem. They are open in their formats - almost all of their data formats are open (.mbox for email, documented xml for iWork etc, open formats for calendar and contacts [and open sourcing their calendar server and contact sync server tools], aac for audio, h.264 for video, LLVM, libdispatch, many other open source projects and formats.)
They're no saints, but no one is.
Rémi Denis-Courmont works for Nokia?
Rémi Denis-Courmont works for Nokia!
Now, where is my tin foil hat?
Rémi Denis-Courmonts LinkedIn profile
and don't forget to tell all of your friends and family why they shouldn't play there either. I don't want to have all mobile computing go the way of the walled garden due to people's lack of knowledge.
I agree with you, which is why I own no iProducts, and the Wii is the last modern video game console that I plan on buying. But the majority appear to believe that hardware that respects users' freedom is just for geeks. What's the most effective way to convince the majority otherwise?
Just because something is done by a significant portion of the population doesn't mean that those participating don't think of themselves as "counter-culture".
Example - tattoos, esp. tramp stamps, and piercings.
Reality has little to do with end-user perceptions. Ask anyone in, for example, customer support.
-- Barbie
At least someone understands the motivations of anti-GPL trolls.
Support SETI@home
This kind of thing makes companies afraid to every use GPLed software because some random developer can come along at any time and initiate legal action against you.
The source code is freely available. Why the hell do we care about the binary? What if you have to run an encrypted binary for a secure, embedded solution, is that against the GPL as well?
This analysis shows that the case for App Store infringing on the GPLv2.0 is weak.
Machinery, not Management. There is no managing taking place.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
By "not being in the App Store" I didn't mean "in some other jailbroken iPhone repository" (if that's what you mean). I meant "not on the iPhone".
In other words, VLC is still quite mainstream (on PCs and other platforms) without having to be on the iPhone.
and Paint it's the image manipulation program of choice.
The "Only 5 Devices" restriction... isn't really a restriction when the APP in question is free (as the VLC app is a free app on the app store).
It only really effects paid apps.
Granted... if you get beyond 5... you may have to use another Appstore ID... but you can create those for free as well (if you have more than 5 iOS devices... you've got bigger problems my friend... if you're sharing the apps with family members/friends... they should probably register their own IDs just for organizational purposes alone).
If instead of selling it to me unlocked, they sell it to me locked, and want this considered illegal in some places... Can we just agree that they don't want to sell it to me the way I want to buy it?
Most free software developers are in no position to afford $99 per licensed developer per year.
FTFY
If you want to modify the software and use it, you have to become a licensed developer. If you want to use the software at all, and Apple has declined to add it to the App Store, and you're not in an existing licensed developer's circle of 100 ad-hoc friends, you have to become a licensed developer. Most original authors aren't willing to pay the licensed developer fee for every user, which is what the Installation Information requirement in at least one version of the GNU GPL appears to require.