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.
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.
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
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.