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.
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.
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?
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.
FTFA:
http://www.fsf.org/news/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement
Basically:
In short, I think there are problems beyond DRM with GPL software being distributed through the app store.
"No sane man will dance." -- Marcus Tullius Cicero
As I recall it requires me to make available the sources of anything I compile
No, that is not what the GPL has ever required. It has required that you make the source code of GPL software available to anyone you distribute that software to, and that you distribute it under the same license, including any changes you make to the software that you distribute (assuming it is not your original work).
why a delivery channel that wraps something in DRM is against the GPL.
The GPLv3 includes an anti-Tivoization clause, which basically requires that if GPL software is going to be locked down by a restriction system (DRM), the user has to be able to bypass/disable that restriction system so that they can enjoy the other benefits of the GPL, like the ability to modify the software. Since the iOS restriction system does not allow users to enjoy the benefits of the GPL (cannot modify code without paying Apple, cannot redistribute, etc.), it is incompatible with GPLv3.
Palm trees and 8
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
VLC is under GPLv2. v2 is compatible with the terms of the Apple App Store and pretty much any other app store out there.
GPLv3 is incompatible because it requires the right that receivers of GPLv3'ed code can not only freely modify it but also run it (this clause was written after TiVo used the Linux kernel in its boxes but had some checksum authentication method to ensure that users don't install modified kernels -- Linus Torvalds, btw, dislikes GPLv3 for that very reason)
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.
Or rather, certain interpretations of GPLv2 say that it allows these restrictions. The wording is unclear and may be understood either way, and "spirit of the license" has no legal weight. GPLv3 merely fixes this ambiguity.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
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.
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
Developer of [the most common piece of software used to watch pirated videos]
The most common piece of software used to watch pirated videos is probably the Windows operating system. What makes VLC more specifically tied to the warez scene than any other video player?
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
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.
You forget to mention that VLC is distributed under the GPLv2 license. So there is no anti-Tivoization clause.
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.
That's a bit like saying Mice are the most commonly used pointing devices used to download pirated/copyright software.
That's a bit like saying LCDs are the most commonly used displays to watch pirated content.
That's a bit like saying air is the most commonly inhaled gas when people watch pirated content.
VLC makes it no more easier to download and watch pirated content than FFDShow, Quicktime, Windows Media Player, Winamp, etc.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
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.
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
While what you say is factually correct, the (implied) conclusion that this ties VLC somehow to piracy or the 'warez scene' is retarded.
To make a car analogy, you just said that Honda (VLC) was tied to the 'illegal street racing scene' (piracy) because their cars are favored by many illegal street racers (pirates). It's not the responsibility of Honda (VLC) if illegal street racers (pirates) recognize the superiority of their product (media player).
RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
Hardly. Only GNU and iOS are acronyms.
The others are initialisms.
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
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.
VLC isn't just about the fact that it plays the stuff that Apple talking heads like to dismiss. It's also a much easier to deal with. It's packaged in a much more user friendly manner and doesn't force clueless novices to try and track down plugins piecemeal or burden them with trying to figure out what plugins they even need.
VLC is a "usability" tool.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Or rather, certain interpretations of GPLv2 say that it allows these restrictions. The wording is unclear and may be understood either way, and "spirit of the license" has no legal weight. GPLv3 merely fixes this ambiguity.
If a license does not contain the wording, there is nothing to interpret out of it. If the GNU chooses to be assholes, everyone outside of their faithful will hate them for it. There is not such thing as a "SPIRIT" of a "LICENCE". It is not legislation but an agreement created by the original authors for third parties.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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.
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...
I have a question for you. Do you enjoy using the internet? That TCP/IP that you are using is the ubiquitous "OPEN STANDARD" because the stack was originally released as BSD licensed code. Do you enjoy other OPEN standards? The majority of them exist because they the sample code was licensed as BSD or similar license. FOSS license do NOT encourage creation of OPEN STANDARDS and formats to the same degree as licenses like BSD. Licenses like BSD allow corporations to participate in development and collaboration over standards/protocols including a common compatible implementation while allowing them to use that code in their own software without fear of viral contamination of their own intellectual property.
The GPL is not the best license to use if you want to further an open standard and interoperability between software platforms and applications. It is only useful if you want to keep it closed within the FOSS community.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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.
That's a bit like saying air is the most commonly inhaled gas when people watch pirated content.
Holy crap, terrorist also depend on air. Therefor pirates must be terrorists.
Apple is making a copy of the software when they distribute it (see Apple Vs Pystar, where Apple's lawyers made precisely this argument and it was upheld). The software is governed by copyright and so they require permission from the copyright holder to do so. The GPL gives them permission to do so, as long as they abide by certain conditions (i.e. either distributing the source code, or providing an offer in writing to provide the source code for no more than a nominal fee on a medium commonly used for software interchange).
Anyone (other than the copyright owner) who makes a copy of any copyrighted work is bound by whatever license granted them the right to do so, or by the limitations of fair use / fair dealings if there is no explicit license. It doesn't matter whether that person is a developer, a publisher, or a store keeper.
Note that this doesn't apply to most brick and mortar stores, because they do not create copies, they simply pass on existing copies (on some physical medium) that were created by others.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Apple is simply the distributor
Distribution of copyrighted material requires permission of the copyright owner, with the notable exception of distributions that fall under the first sale doctrine. The first sale doctrine does not apply to the App Store.
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.
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.
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.