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."
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.
No. Under GPL if I add something useful and extend the program, I have to also post those changes under GPL.
Only if you distribute the program the restriction kicks in. If you just use the program no one is going to force you to post the changes and modifications.
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
What makes VLC more specifically tied to the warez scene than any other video player?
When obnoxious teenage 1337 w4r3z d00dz upload poorly encoded video or video encoded with some retarded codec that almost no one uses the standard reply to "why won't this play?" is "Use VLC, it plays fine there." because VLC plays almost anything (and for those things that don't play in VLC there's always Mplayer).
Basically, the reason VLC is popular with downloaded content is because it tends to play a lot of formats that other software doesn't understand.
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
It's also much less bloated than WMP or iTunes, and it still plays nearly anything out of the box, which is why I use it. Startup time is important, and definitely a draw when it's less than 1/10th of the time of the other leading players.
NO.
All the provisions of the GPL apply to distributing exact and modified copies of the software.
If you make changes to GPL software but do not distribute it there is nothing that says you must provide your changes to anyone. ONLY if you distribute the software must you make provision for distributing the source of the version you distribute.
"Apple" doesn't offer you a limited number of region changes, that is part of the firmware of the DVD drive, and is common to *all* DVD drives to be in compliance with the specification. It's a brainless part of the spec, but it is in there at the behest of the movie industry. All of Apple's drives are standard off-the-shelf drives from a number of manufacturers - off the top of my head, they use Sony, Matashita (panasonic), NEC and Pioneer drives, among others.
VLC can attempt to ignore the region code, but it only works on some drives. Certain ones (usually the more modern Panasonic ones) are crippled further, preventing bypass of the region lock this way. My older Powerbook's drive can be bypassed with VLC, but my newer iMac's drive doesn't work like that and required that I patch it with an RPC-1 firmware.
In order to actually sell a DVD drive, it has to have this brainless region coding - the manufacturers who make them would face licensing consequences if they shipped region free drives. Apple itself does not make DVD drives, but they are affected by this downstream - they can't install custom firmwares that remove the restriction.
The App Store is coming to desktops and laptops in the next edition of OS X, so this applies to ALL of Apple's "computing" products in the near future.
The VLC Team is sending a copyright infringement to Apple
Not quite. One VLC developer sent a copyright infringement notice. It is not the VLC team doing it. In fact, when that developer wrote about it on his planet VLC blog, his blog was temporarily removed from planet VLC because the VLC team was concerned it might look like they were complaining to Apple, rather than it being one developer who had a problem with Apple. (I believe his blog has been restored, and the particular entry has a disclaimed on it making it clear that it is a person action of the developer, not an action of the whole team).
On their mailing list, a couple other developers agree with the first developer. and some other developers disagree because Apple changed its terms after the GNU Go incident and they think the new terms remove the conflict with GPL.