Slashdot Mirror
VLC For iOS Returns On July 19, Rewritten and Fully Open-Sourced
An anonymous reader writes "VideoLAN revealed some very exciting news today: VLC for iOS will be back in Apple's App Store by tomorrow (July 19). The company tells TNW the app will be available for free worldwide, requires iOS 5.1 or later, as well supports the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch. As you can expect, VLC for iOS version 2.0 will be open-source. This time, however, its code will be available online (also by tomorrow), bi-licensed under both the Mozilla Public License Version 2 as well as the GNU General Public License Version 2 or later."
I don't understand how they think this will work. LibVLC is LGPL, and unless they got consent from _every_ VLC contributor or the terms and conditions changed dramatically the last couple of months they can't distribute it on the iOS App Store. Sorry, but you picked the wrong license if that was something you wanted to do.
Sony will come after them for copyright infringement.
It's dual licensed you insensitive clod!
how long before HBO asks apple to take it down?
Yeah, this doesnt seem like exciting news to me at all. Dual-licensing it to get it in the app store is a failure, not a victory. If the app store isnt compatible with GPL software, then the app store shouldnt be getting access to GPL software. Dual-licensing to work around Apples error seems actively counterproductive to me.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
This was news to me, and every news article just vaguely mentions it without providing details. For those unfamiliar, here is an article by the Free Software Foundation explaining the incompatibility. and here is another article which represents a more nuanced position.
Don't particularly care about the licensing issues.
My question is whether it will allow me to stream from my home system, or will I have to upload every video file or use Dropbox or some other kludge.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
> As a copyright holder you can only request that the app is removed if distributing it violates the license under which you contributed.
Or if you contributed it under a gratuitous license rather than a contracted-for license, since gratuitous licenses are revocable at will.
I mean, if it makes it available on the Apple Store, then you MUST ignore the license someone puts on their work!
Just like ignoring the licenses so it can get on TPB!
The whole idea of open-source is that once the code is 'open', it is out there for anyone to use FOREVER so long as the license is respected. Frankly, you need an IQ of around 5 to understand this concept, which is why you clearly don't.
Public Domain means "no longer controlled by copyright". Open-source means "released under a permissive license that allows re-use and redistribution by anyone that follows the license".
A license is a contract, and CANNOT in law simply be retroactively adjusted by one party in any way that effects the other party. Open-source makes EVERYONE the other party if they agree to the license.
If you were not such a clueless (and big mouthed) cretin, SuperKendall (and I hope to god no-one employs you in any capacity in the IT business), you would have noticed how the world's biggest and least pleasant IT companies have had to sit back and watch as open-source properties they have acquired are forked by others, without ANYTHING they can do to prevent this. Where, you cretin, do you think Libre-Office came from?
This situation is actually the exactly reverse of what you dribble. The 'owners' of the copyright of open-source projects have the trickiest of legal situations if they desire to create a 'closed-source' fork in the future. Why? Because they have to show either:
1) the closed source fork consists ONLY of code they OWN, and that they have compensated anyone who previously did free quality control of this code when it was open-source (for instance, people who reported bugs).
2) the closed source fork consists ONLY of code that ALL the contributors have agreed may be part of a closed-source fork
Given the above, most closed-source forks are clearly illegal (lack of compensation), but few people bother to take action against the original copyright holders - tolerating this abuse for the benefits open-source releases bring in the first place.
So TPB is only a distribution channel for Mac OSX rips, right?
anyone who have contributed to them that cares can request that they are pulled since they are distributed against the conditions stipulated in the GPL.
The reason Apple listens is not complaints about the GPL, but because they are partly the copyright holder. Apple doesn't care about the GPL; they do care about copyrighted work being distributed without permission.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
GNu is not. Hence why Bill Gates called it viral and started a flamewar on slashdot. I am not a troll here but someone correct me if I am wrong?
If I make a C++ header file it means you can use include in your mozilla or proprietary product if I make it available under the LGPL. L = linking. You acknowledge you do not own my header file and likewise I do not own your program. You own the program even if I provide the header file, dll, or .so you wish to use to make it functional.
Now if I make it under the GPL I can sue you for copyright violations as the GPL dictates if one part of the program is GPL then all of it is. RMS did this because he hates non free software and this now puts you in a sticky situation.
This is why FSF put a linking exception in the GPL license for IcedTea. Java developers can not use a gnu library in a non-gnu program.
http://saveie6.com/
Why are you so ashamed of your thinking that you post AC? You actually had a pretty good post there.
Your understanding of the GPL is roughly correct. Your understanding of what I said is utterly wrong.
Yes the GPL is a contract, but like any contract the actual enforcement is up to the courts. It does not mean the original copyright holder cannot sue someone for using source code that was distributed under the GPL, or make complaints to others that as the copyright holder (for instance) they wish to have something removed from the app store. That's exactly what happened. Apple complied because the person who complained was the copyright holder - end of story.
As you say actual compliance with the GPL is spotty but it doesn't matter as long as no-one takes action. The VLC app would have stayed on the app store until the end of time if one of the copyright holders did not complain.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you have a problem with the lack of OpenSource Apps for iOS, blame the Developers
Making use of the open-source aspect of such apps costs $1,045: $649 for a Mac mini on which to run Xcode and $99 for each of four years of the expected service life of the iPod touch, iPhone, or iPad. I blame only Apple's business decisions for this price.
Users have a CHOICE to not use Apple products
What you say appears not to be true of a high school student who received an iPod touch, iPhone, or iPad as a gift and is prohibited by law from working.
This thread is the butthurt olympics.
You can distribute GPL or other open-souce software on the App Store, because it's easy to also distribute source somewhere else.
I thought the iOS developer terms prohibited developers from disclosing "Installation Information" (GPLv3 term) or "scripts used to control [...] installation of the executable" (GPLv2 term) to more than a few dozen people at once.
Apple is under no obligation to accommodate arbitrary licensing terms
What's the leading competitor to iPod touch?
Give up? That must mean Apple has market power in the market of pocket-size Wi-Fi tablets. In that case, how does insisting on terms that forbid the distribution of copylefted software not violate competition law?
VLC is free software. It has nothing to do with open source.
The free software and open source movements arise from different premises, but they end up at the same conclusion. The Debian Free Software Guidelines and the OSI Open Source Definition are worded nearly identically.
In my opinion, having the source available on the homepage of the app is good enough.
GPLv3 requires the source code to include what it calls "Installation Information". (GPLv2 has a similar provision about scripts used to control installation.) Apple doesn't let a single developer distribute Installation Information to more than 99 members of the public.
The irony is that VLC was pulled from the iTunes store last time not by evil Sith lord apprentices at Apple, not at the behest of a evil DRM purveyor, nor was it pulled due to threats by the RIAA or MPAA, it was removed at the insistence of a VLC developer
I believe Joe_Dragon was referring to this recent Slashdot story, where a studio sharing a parent company with an MPAA member submitted a mistaken robo-DMCA notice to Google: HBO Asks Google To Take Down "Infringing" VLC Media Player
However all Apple sees is an original copyright holder issuing a complaint.
If the developer who uploaded the app to the App Store believed that the app was properly using the complaining contributor's code under the GNU General Public License, the uploader could have filed a counter-notification. But it turns out that Apple's terms conflict with the Installation Information requirement of the GPL.
You claim that explicitly preserving users' ability to modify the software (or to hire someone to modify the software) and make use of this modification is a "shortcoming". How so?
The impression I got last time I read the LGPL was that static linking was fine as long as you provide the source code and Installation Information for the copylefted parts and the object code (.o files) for everything else. The problem here is that iOS provisioning gets in the way of providing Installation Information.
to hell with ios. they should make vlc for android and watch it become the most
downloaded app on the play store. i don't think play store will have a problem with
the gpl.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Vsync under Windows 7. We have more important things to do first though...
Here's the thing: for most of us, if the only way to assert our rights involves hiring attorneys for what could easily be a protracted court case, then we have been effectively stripped of our rights.
Apple's contract, on its face, clearly and plainly requires us to agree to onerous conditions which, on their face, render Apple incapable of qualifying for the GPL. Apple has absolutely zero interest in changing that in any way and has made that very clear. That is their right.
Using GPL software to entice people into their "system," however, is not their right. Not morally, and not legally. It's a privilege extended only to those willing to comply with the incredibly reasonable, and extraordinarily specific, terms of the GPL. Given that Apple has made it clear they have no interest or intention whatsoever of allowing their customers the essential freedoms the GPL was built to preserve, why on earth would anyone expect them to be allowed to use the code?
Come on.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Android also uses signed binaries, but anyone who modifies the software can re-sign it with a self-signed certificate and adb install it on a device. The difference with iOS is that a developer doesn't own his own Installation Information.
You can develop applications for GNU/Linux or Windows using the standard PC you already have or the standard PC that someone else in your household already has. You don't have to first replace your existing PC with a new Mac.
Well gee thanks, that's plumb useless...seriously. But congratulations to all of the other ITunes users (outside of the US) that can get it.
Regards,
MBC1977,
That would be accurate if Apple had more than 50 percent market share. But a personal computer randomly selected from among the installed base is more likely to be not a Mac than to be a Mac.
You are a member of a 7.18% niche (source: Desktop OS Market Share as of June 2013, Net Applications). The majority have standard PCs.
For one thing, how should somebody who wants to take advantage of the rights offered in a free software license obtain the capital to become a serious developer? For another, if one serious developer uploads a program to the App Store and distributes the source code to the public, and another serious developer uploads a noticeably improved version of the same program to the App Store, I was under the impression that Apple would still reject the second version as a duplicate.
Windows and Linux have no problem with VLC. Also, neither does Android! VLC doesn't need Apple. I say, stop providing any software under a gnu license to Apple. If their software such as Quick time is so great, make them use that exclusively. They are the walled garden, aren't they? If they want to open the gate to their garden, then, great! Until such time, all this great software should be available only to open operating systems. Yeah, Yeah, I know all you Apple fanboys out there are thinking daggers at me, but, one question; Do you have to pay cash for any of these gnu licensed products obtained thru the App Store? If not, is Apple providing any money to the open-source developers who make this great software possible? I doubt it!!!
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!