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.
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.
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
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.
Stop right there. Really.
The old. tired BSD vs GPL argument is not needed here.
There are good reasons to use one over the other, but I'm sorry, freedom has different definitions. GPL grants freedoms to end users that BSD does not. BSD grants rights to developers and distributors that GPL does not. It is not magically "more free".
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. I may not want to do that. BSD gives me the freedom to do as I wish. BSD is far more free than GPL.
Either something should be free or it should not. GPL simply pretends to be free while at the same time forcing you to adhere to a very specific philosophy.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
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?
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.
GPL is not free as in beer and is not free as in speech. It's free as in RMS definition of freedom.
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.
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
Free = public domain. Everything else, just pretenders to the crown.
Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
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.
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.
Why would I bother developing something if I wasn't going to distribute it, either myself or someone I work for?
At home, because I want to use it?
At work, because the purpose of my work was to hyper-customize it, with the side effect that it would be useless anywhere else in the rest of the world?
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
If you right something yourself, just yourself, you don't have to publish the source code under the GPL. You can publish it under BSD, or Apache, or a proprietary licence, or whatever.
If you want to take somebody else's code and do something with it (modify it, build something on top of it, etc.) they have the right to request you treat their code in the way that they wish. If they put it under GPL, it's because they want your code to be fed back into something useful for them. Seeing as you're benefiting from their hard work, you don't get ultimate control over it.
I've always hated the "what's more free" argument- I think it's pointless. If I had to say so, I'd say BSD is "more free", whatever that means. But ultimately, BSD is really useful for some things, GPL is really useful for others, and other licences are useful for other things entirely.
Both GPL & BSD are a lot more community-friendly than an old fashioned proprietary licence, and that's all that really matters to me. Stallman be damned.
Getting a developer's license has nothing to do with this; Apple is distributing a binary of a ported VLC in contravention of VLC's license. Apple's App Store rules are the heart of the issue: Apple's App Store rules prohibit them from complying with the GNU GPL which disallows adding restrictions to its (now longstanding) terms. Apple controls which apps enter and leave their App Store; they had as much time as they wanted to review license compliance and they apparently chose copyright infringement. Part of what makes this so bad is that they chose to infringe against people who are treating users so nicely: the GPL gives everyone (even Apple) all the license they need to distribute programs, even commercially.
Apple is most certainly responsible for infringingly distributing VLC. Much as you want to call the FSF names (your hyperbole suggests this is for reasons you can't justify), the FSF almost doesn't enter into the situation here except for being the author of the license VLC programmers chose to license VLC under. VLC programmer Rémi Denis-Courmont is simply defending his chosen license against an organization that would impose new restrictions on users of that variant of VLC.
So, if Apple chooses to remove VLC from their App Store as they removed GNU Go in May under what Denis-Courmont calls "strikingly similar circumstances", Apple will be making it that much less convenient for most iOS users to get and use VLC. Perhaps you should visit the FSF article linked to in the top of this /. thread which includes:
To take this the way you want to read it, it's almost as if you don't believe copyright holders should be able to choose their own license and legally defend their choice. We should all just bend to Apple's will and let them proprietarize or include DRM in the distribution of anything we make. Apparently there are GPLed program hackers who don't agree with that.
Digital Citizen