Hm, but there's definitely GPLv2 stuff in there. Apple doesn't necessarily agree with the FSF -- they'll err on the side of agreeing with the copyright owner, they don't have a history of fighting 'em.
And thus we have a demonstration of that "fight the power!" attitude I mentioned.
They do support some FOSS, quite explicitly, and their agreements have been revised specifically to make this clear. There's plenty of FOSS in the app store right now, like the Wordpress and Redmine client applications.
But it's also still a curated platform, and Apple will maintain absolute and unflinching control over the end-user experience, period. There is no pretense or duplicity on this point. Anyone who's not comfortable with that fact ought to stay away from the platform.
This is not a contradiction, and it's not arbitrary "cruelty", and being willing to work within this framework isn't "servile". People who don't understand the value of a curated platform won't "get it". Even people who do understand the value of a curated platform, but who consider it a no-brainer that absolute end-user freedom must always trump that value, those people also won't "get it". But there really is plenty of room for reasonable compromise and respectful interactions, for a lot of folks who don't match those descriptions.
You cannot access another app's file system with some very specific exceptions.
But one of those exceptions is very very relevant for VLC.
An app can register with the system to be a "handler" for files of a certain type. Then when all sorts of things try to present a file of that type, they can get an "Open in..." button that tells the OS to ship a copy of the file to the app in question so it can be handled.
What's this mean?
Well, it means for example that if VLC can play Theora videos, you'd suddenly be able to tap on links to Theora videos in Safari and get an "Open in VLC" option, or tap on a Theora video that's a mail attachment in the mail app and get the same thing. Kinda a big deal IMO.
If you want to see an example of this infrastructure right now, install "Stanza". It "handles" EPUB files. Once you've got it loaded, you can go to a web site like Project Gutenberg or the Baen free library that has DRM-free EPUB file download links, and tap on them, and see an "open in Stanza" option.
If all you're talking about is hardware, then mostly sure, except there are several other differences as well (such as the ability to drive an external display in true high def via a VGA connector -- I'm not going to list them all, but it's not just USB).
But, if all you're talking about is hardware, you're not being reasonable, because by that reasoning there's no difference between a Windows netbook and an Ubuntu netbook. I'd call that a silly and impractical stance to take. You might be right for a narrow set of extremely technical users who are just going to hack the bejezis out of their gadgets anyway, but you'd be flat out wrong for most people.
1) Even though I'm pretty sure the GPLv2 and App Store are compatible, I'm also pretty sure the FSF would raise a stink and I wouldn't have the resources to fight, and thus Apple would end up removing it from the store anyway, and
2) In order to get the full behavior I'd want with a bluetooth or USB keyboard, at this time I would have to use undocumented APIs, which would piss off Apple. An example of what I mean: I wouldn't be able to get the control keybindings to work properly without using undocumented APIs. And without correct keyboard behavior... what's the point?
3) In order to comply with the "users can't download interpreted code to the thing", I'd have to keep people from loading elisp on to it. But elisp files in Emacs aren't some special magic thing, they're just files. How could one absolutely prevent people from downloading elisp? By preventing network access and (most) file transfers. What's the point?
(In the end, #2 was the biggest reason. If the keyboard APIs open up a bit more, I'll re-evaluate.)
I'm not sure you've read the developer agreement closely enough. You're allowed to do open source, explicitly. Download the latest version of the agreement right now, and look at section 3.3.20. Right there it says essentially "using FOSS is completely okay, as long as you can follow all the rules in this document and all the rules in the applicable FOSS license at the same time".
The FSF certainly says that the app store is incompatible with the GPL. They also say people should never use GPLv2, just GPLv3. The GPLv3 has an anti-TiVoization clause. Heck, read it in the FSF's own words right here:
Focus on the sixth paragraph. That makes the GPLv3 incompatible with the App Store (or with appliances like the TiVo) in ways that simply do not apply to the GPLv2.
(I researched this a bunch while kicking around the idea of taking the last version of Emacs that was under GPLv2 instead of GPLv3 and porting that to the iPad. I ultimately decided against it, but not for reasons of license compatibility.)
For a start: user interface guidelines (which really can make the difference between app approval and rejection), and also OS infrastructure and frameworks (the iPad can support popups/overlays that the iPhone and iPod Touch can't -- Apple added those API calls to the iPad only, because the iPad display is large enough for that sort of thing to make sense).
For another: the iPad can actually act as a USB host (though you need a physical adapter to do it, the circuitry is in there), letting you use stuff like USB keyboards (and a USB bar code scanner -- I've used one myself), and no other iOS device has the necessary hardware at this time.
It's popular to say "it's just a big iPod Touch", and there are elements of truth to that, but it's not really completely accurate.
Waiting until Apple can give feedback on it, as long as the wait is not too long, is a way to demonstrate to Apple that you're acting in good faith and attempting to comply with their policies and processes. It shows that if Apple finds a minor fault with the app and requests something be changed, they're willing to wait to incorporate those changes before letting non-compliant versions get "out into the wild".
The wait may not be necessary, but it's certainly a decent idea for someone who wants to work with Apple instead of adopting a "fight the power!" attitude. It's a show of respect. And the gesture probably does appreciably increase the odds that it'll get approved.
Heh, anyone who's been around long enough should be very aware of those exception clauses. The GPL, Emacs, and GCC all predate glibc and Linux by a lot. Back in the day when I wanted to run GPLed software, I had to run it on a SunOS (the name "Solaris" hadn't been invented yet) or Ultrix or AOS system using the vendor's C library (and often compiler). The GPL does not "infect" the whole "stack" from kernel to system libraries to universally included frameworks.
To add to what others have already mentioned, I'll point out that VLC is very specifically GPLv2, not GPLv3. Version 2 did not have the "anti TiVoization" stuff that version 3 has. The restrictions on what you can do really are different.
Apart from the "control through the iOS devices" (which just uses the same "Remote" app you can use to control iTunes or the old version of AppleTV today), the whole "AirPlay" thing is potentially quite interesting. From what I've read, it sounds like a random buddy can come over with an iPhone that has a video loaded on it, start playing it, and transfer the output wirelessly to the TV. Yeah... I have a use for that.
How is it for non-video? Games? Simple non-video animations like StrongBad? Very simple video like the Zero Punctuation stuff?
(Full disclosure: today, I happen to be an iOS user and am content with the lack of Flash right now -- I usually disable it on my desktop too -- but I'm interested in how this all plays out, and willing to be persuaded.)
Why is it important that the recording was performed with this particular device?
Well, note that they're talking about wiretap laws, but the recording under discussion was done via physical proximity, not via "tapping a wire".
If the recording had been done via an old analog microcasette recorder, would wiretap laws have ever come up? In this case, the recording was done by a phone, even though nobody was recording a phone call. I could see a need for the courts to provide clarity in this case. Because you're recording a conversation with a multipurpose tool that happens to contain a phone, does that make phone-related recording laws kick in or not?
Naw, I'm not an idiot. Honestly, I doubt you are either, even though we don't agree.
Yeah, I'm going to have less fine-grained control, and I'm not going to be able to use mods. But I know I will have more fun. I've tested this with other games.
YMMV of course. If you have more fun with the PC version, then that's what you should get, and I'll never argue otherwise. But I know that playing on my living room couch, displaying on my 42" 1080p TV set, and using a gamepad so that I can save the surfaces near my couch for soda and chips and stuff results in an overall experience that's considerably more fun for me. It's faster to pick up and put down, there's nothing on my lap to distract me, I end up being more immersed and enjoying myself more.
And I have yet to find a user-generated mod for any game that actually makes that game more fun for me. This is another huge "YMMV" thing of course, but for me it's been true so far. So the "no mods" thing doesn't enter into the equation for me. As for the "pay more", the amount is small enough to be negligible for me at this point in my career. If I were still a starving college student I might feel otherwise, but that hasn't been the case for decades.
The "able to control your game less well" thing isn't the reason it's more fun. How well you can control your game is just not the only factor that goes into fun. It's not an inferior interface, it's a different interface that's inferior by the criteria that some people (probably including yourself), but not all people, use to judge.
Sure, it's not fun having your arse handed to you. But if you take that element out, who had more fun?
Can I get more performance out of mouse/keyboard? Sure. But I have less fun when I do so!
So, given the choice between lowering the performance requirement and encouraging mouse/keyboard use, know which one I'd pick?
Here's a hint: even though Portal 2 is going to be released with full support for Linus, MacOS, and Windows, I'm still going to be playing it on a console myself.
So companies in NZ will be producing algorithms that in the rest of the world would be patentable, but will just let anyone use them for any purpose with no regard or no compensation?
Not being a big Apple person I haven't spent much time buying from the App store; is it possible to buy an app for someone elses' device, or for a device that doesn't exist yet?
Yes. The purchases are just like iTunes music purchases. They require an iTunes account. They're not bound to specific devices at all, they're bound to iTunes accounts. Even if you don't have an iOS device, nothing would stop you from going out and buying an app right now. If you ever did sync an iOS device to your iTunes library, the app would then install on that device (if you haven't deleted it from your library in the intervening time). Even if it's a hardware model and OS version that didn't exist when you made your purchase, yes.
I was thinking "if this is just someone probing credit card validity via the app store, why haven't we seen it with music before"? But I think the answer is, for music, Apple is paying out to a much smaller list of payment recipients. A single individual human being can sell apps. Doing the same for music is considerably harder. I think apps are just way more open to fraud than music is, because of the difference in publisher relationships.
If that's the case, why would we see this via apps but not books? The iBooks store also lets individuals contribute without other intermediaries.
But, with iBooks you can't sell for a device that doesn't exist yet. The only purchase interface is on the devices themselves, not the web or iTunes or anything. It'll be interesting to see if similar exploits appear for iBooks books if/when there are other purchase mechanisms for them.
It's weird how people think they can add to a debate with experts while being absolute non-experts themselves.
The way I try to do it is to help 'em out in specific sub-areas where I have more expertise than they do.
I'll give you an example. I work at a university. At one point we had one of the most powerful magnets in the world, because of a world-class NMR spectroscopy rig in the basement of a science building. I wanted to go and help 'em out, and learn about NMR. I went for a visit, and noticed a bunch of older Sun workstations running outdated visualization software. The proposal I made to them was: "I'll help you out with your computers, managing system updates and keeping the visualisation and control software healthy and installing updates that add useful features and stuff. The only thing I want in return is, please explain what you're doing -- I want to learn about NMR."
That relationship was fruitful for quite a while! They got better tools for data analysis (I was able to give them better 3D color plots and stuff), and I learned a tremendous amount about NMR spectroscopy as it was being used in that lab. (I also got to look at a helium reclamation plant that they kept around because of all the helium-cooled stuff, and got to stand near a magnet that erased credit card magstripes on other floors of the building sometimes.)
Being able to explain scientific concepts to non-scientists is not "lying" or "marketing", it's fucking called "teaching".
If the audience shows up with the intent to understand the concepts, and agrees with some fundamental starting points, yes. What happens when neither of those is true?
Looks to me like they're talking about mandating interoperable data formats and protocols, not app portability. Sounds good to me! That's exactly what we should have.
I do not want to force Microsoft to make "Word" available on every platform, or force every platform vendor to create an emulated environment that runs a version of "Word". I want to force "significant" word processor vendors to offer import/export to compatible, open formats (doing so will cause market forces to force the insignificant vendors to do so too).
Same deal with the iOS, sure. Yeah, it's nice that "Pages" can spit out a Word or PDF version of a file and store it out to the "iwork.com" web site. Now what about just adding "OpenDocument" formats (or maybe just RTF) to the conversion list (or maybe even just completely document/open the XML format that Pages uses so we can do it ourselves with XSLT), and using a standard protocol like WebDAV do to the storing and fetching? That's exactly what should happen, as long as we're talking about "our data" (eg. our essays, our spreadsheets).
I don't want them to mandate openness with regards to application execution (eg. "everyone has to be able to install whatever they want wherever they want"), or with regards to client-side support of DRM (eg. "because Adobe's DRM is ubiquitous for ebooks lent by public libraries, every ebook reader is legally required to support Adobe's DRM"). Both of those, I'd consider to have more downside than upside. But for example mandating that every significant ebook reader be able to export annotations in an interoperable way (so I can mark up a Kindle copy of "1984" and import my own personal notes into an iBooks copy), that I'd welcome.
Slashdot Mirror
Hm, but there's definitely GPLv2 stuff in there. Apple doesn't necessarily agree with the FSF -- they'll err on the side of agreeing with the copyright owner, they don't have a history of fighting 'em.
And thus we have a demonstration of that "fight the power!" attitude I mentioned.
They do support some FOSS, quite explicitly, and their agreements have been revised specifically to make this clear. There's plenty of FOSS in the app store right now, like the Wordpress and Redmine client applications.
But it's also still a curated platform, and Apple will maintain absolute and unflinching control over the end-user experience, period. There is no pretense or duplicity on this point. Anyone who's not comfortable with that fact ought to stay away from the platform.
This is not a contradiction, and it's not arbitrary "cruelty", and being willing to work within this framework isn't "servile". People who don't understand the value of a curated platform won't "get it". Even people who do understand the value of a curated platform, but who consider it a no-brainer that absolute end-user freedom must always trump that value, those people also won't "get it". But there really is plenty of room for reasonable compromise and respectful interactions, for a lot of folks who don't match those descriptions.
But one of those exceptions is very very relevant for VLC.
An app can register with the system to be a "handler" for files of a certain type. Then when all sorts of things try to present a file of that type, they can get an "Open in..." button that tells the OS to ship a copy of the file to the app in question so it can be handled.
What's this mean?
Well, it means for example that if VLC can play Theora videos, you'd suddenly be able to tap on links to Theora videos in Safari and get an "Open in VLC" option, or tap on a Theora video that's a mail attachment in the mail app and get the same thing. Kinda a big deal IMO.
If you want to see an example of this infrastructure right now, install "Stanza". It "handles" EPUB files. Once you've got it loaded, you can go to a web site like Project Gutenberg or the Baen free library that has DRM-free EPUB file download links, and tap on them, and see an "open in Stanza" option.
If all you're talking about is hardware, then mostly sure, except there are several other differences as well (such as the ability to drive an external display in true high def via a VGA connector -- I'm not going to list them all, but it's not just USB).
But, if all you're talking about is hardware, you're not being reasonable, because by that reasoning there's no difference between a Windows netbook and an Ubuntu netbook. I'd call that a silly and impractical stance to take. You might be right for a narrow set of extremely technical users who are just going to hack the bejezis out of their gadgets anyway, but you'd be flat out wrong for most people.
A few reasons I didn't go forward with it:
1) Even though I'm pretty sure the GPLv2 and App Store are compatible, I'm also pretty sure the FSF would raise a stink and I wouldn't have the resources to fight, and thus Apple would end up removing it from the store anyway, and
2) In order to get the full behavior I'd want with a bluetooth or USB keyboard, at this time I would have to use undocumented APIs, which would piss off Apple. An example of what I mean: I wouldn't be able to get the control keybindings to work properly without using undocumented APIs. And without correct keyboard behavior... what's the point?
3) In order to comply with the "users can't download interpreted code to the thing", I'd have to keep people from loading elisp on to it. But elisp files in Emacs aren't some special magic thing, they're just files. How could one absolutely prevent people from downloading elisp? By preventing network access and (most) file transfers. What's the point?
(In the end, #2 was the biggest reason. If the keyboard APIs open up a bit more, I'll re-evaluate.)
I'm not sure you've read the developer agreement closely enough. You're allowed to do open source, explicitly. Download the latest version of the agreement right now, and look at section 3.3.20. Right there it says essentially "using FOSS is completely okay, as long as you can follow all the rules in this document and all the rules in the applicable FOSS license at the same time".
The FSF certainly says that the app store is incompatible with the GPL. They also say people should never use GPLv2, just GPLv3. The GPLv3 has an anti-TiVoization clause. Heck, read it in the FSF's own words right here:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html
Focus on the sixth paragraph. That makes the GPLv3 incompatible with the App Store (or with appliances like the TiVo) in ways that simply do not apply to the GPLv2.
(I researched this a bunch while kicking around the idea of taking the last version of Emacs that was under GPLv2 instead of GPLv3 and porting that to the iPad. I ultimately decided against it, but not for reasons of license compatibility.)
For a start: user interface guidelines (which really can make the difference between app approval and rejection), and also OS infrastructure and frameworks (the iPad can support popups/overlays that the iPhone and iPod Touch can't -- Apple added those API calls to the iPad only, because the iPad display is large enough for that sort of thing to make sense).
For another: the iPad can actually act as a USB host (though you need a physical adapter to do it, the circuitry is in there), letting you use stuff like USB keyboards (and a USB bar code scanner -- I've used one myself), and no other iOS device has the necessary hardware at this time.
It's popular to say "it's just a big iPod Touch", and there are elements of truth to that, but it's not really completely accurate.
Waiting until Apple can give feedback on it, as long as the wait is not too long, is a way to demonstrate to Apple that you're acting in good faith and attempting to comply with their policies and processes. It shows that if Apple finds a minor fault with the app and requests something be changed, they're willing to wait to incorporate those changes before letting non-compliant versions get "out into the wild".
The wait may not be necessary, but it's certainly a decent idea for someone who wants to work with Apple instead of adopting a "fight the power!" attitude. It's a show of respect. And the gesture probably does appreciably increase the odds that it'll get approved.
Heh, anyone who's been around long enough should be very aware of those exception clauses. The GPL, Emacs, and GCC all predate glibc and Linux by a lot. Back in the day when I wanted to run GPLed software, I had to run it on a SunOS (the name "Solaris" hadn't been invented yet) or Ultrix or AOS system using the vendor's C library (and often compiler). The GPL does not "infect" the whole "stack" from kernel to system libraries to universally included frameworks.
To add to what others have already mentioned, I'll point out that VLC is very specifically GPLv2, not GPLv3. Version 2 did not have the "anti TiVoization" stuff that version 3 has. The restrictions on what you can do really are different.
Apart from the "control through the iOS devices" (which just uses the same "Remote" app you can use to control iTunes or the old version of AppleTV today), the whole "AirPlay" thing is potentially quite interesting. From what I've read, it sounds like a random buddy can come over with an iPhone that has a video loaded on it, start playing it, and transfer the output wirelessly to the TV. Yeah... I have a use for that.
I never thought it'd be any good for most video.
How is it for non-video? Games? Simple non-video animations like StrongBad? Very simple video like the Zero Punctuation stuff?
(Full disclosure: today, I happen to be an iOS user and am content with the lack of Flash right now -- I usually disable it on my desktop too -- but I'm interested in how this all plays out, and willing to be persuaded.)
Well, note that they're talking about wiretap laws, but the recording under discussion was done via physical proximity, not via "tapping a wire".
If the recording had been done via an old analog microcasette recorder, would wiretap laws have ever come up? In this case, the recording was done by a phone, even though nobody was recording a phone call. I could see a need for the courts to provide clarity in this case. Because you're recording a conversation with a multipurpose tool that happens to contain a phone, does that make phone-related recording laws kick in or not?
If you're asking whether conspiracy theories are /. worthy, I'm going to guess you're too young to remember Hans Reiser?
...must not make "Peter Porker" joke...
Naw, I'm not an idiot. Honestly, I doubt you are either, even though we don't agree.
Yeah, I'm going to have less fine-grained control, and I'm not going to be able to use mods. But I know I will have more fun. I've tested this with other games.
YMMV of course. If you have more fun with the PC version, then that's what you should get, and I'll never argue otherwise. But I know that playing on my living room couch, displaying on my 42" 1080p TV set, and using a gamepad so that I can save the surfaces near my couch for soda and chips and stuff results in an overall experience that's considerably more fun for me. It's faster to pick up and put down, there's nothing on my lap to distract me, I end up being more immersed and enjoying myself more.
And I have yet to find a user-generated mod for any game that actually makes that game more fun for me. This is another huge "YMMV" thing of course, but for me it's been true so far. So the "no mods" thing doesn't enter into the equation for me. As for the "pay more", the amount is small enough to be negligible for me at this point in my career. If I were still a starving college student I might feel otherwise, but that hasn't been the case for decades.
The "able to control your game less well" thing isn't the reason it's more fun. How well you can control your game is just not the only factor that goes into fun. It's not an inferior interface, it's a different interface that's inferior by the criteria that some people (probably including yourself), but not all people, use to judge.
Sure, it's not fun having your arse handed to you. But if you take that element out, who had more fun?
Can I get more performance out of mouse/keyboard? Sure. But I have less fun when I do so!
So, given the choice between lowering the performance requirement and encouraging mouse/keyboard use, know which one I'd pick?
Here's a hint: even though Portal 2 is going to be released with full support for Linus, MacOS, and Windows, I'm still going to be playing it on a console myself.
Someone has never read the Bob Asprin "Myth" books, eh?
So companies in NZ will be producing algorithms that in the rest of the world would be patentable, but will just let anyone use them for any purpose with no regard or no compensation?
It may become a haven for patent trollops!
Not being a big Apple person I haven't spent much time buying from the App store; is it possible to buy an app for someone elses' device, or for a device that doesn't exist yet?
Yes. The purchases are just like iTunes music purchases. They require an iTunes account. They're not bound to specific devices at all, they're bound to iTunes accounts. Even if you don't have an iOS device, nothing would stop you from going out and buying an app right now. If you ever did sync an iOS device to your iTunes library, the app would then install on that device (if you haven't deleted it from your library in the intervening time). Even if it's a hardware model and OS version that didn't exist when you made your purchase, yes.
I was thinking "if this is just someone probing credit card validity via the app store, why haven't we seen it with music before"? But I think the answer is, for music, Apple is paying out to a much smaller list of payment recipients. A single individual human being can sell apps. Doing the same for music is considerably harder. I think apps are just way more open to fraud than music is, because of the difference in publisher relationships.
If that's the case, why would we see this via apps but not books? The iBooks store also lets individuals contribute without other intermediaries.
But, with iBooks you can't sell for a device that doesn't exist yet. The only purchase interface is on the devices themselves, not the web or iTunes or anything. It'll be interesting to see if similar exploits appear for iBooks books if/when there are other purchase mechanisms for them.
It's weird how people think they can add to a debate with experts while being absolute non-experts themselves.
The way I try to do it is to help 'em out in specific sub-areas where I have more expertise than they do.
I'll give you an example. I work at a university. At one point we had one of the most powerful magnets in the world, because of a world-class NMR spectroscopy rig in the basement of a science building. I wanted to go and help 'em out, and learn about NMR. I went for a visit, and noticed a bunch of older Sun workstations running outdated visualization software. The proposal I made to them was: "I'll help you out with your computers, managing system updates and keeping the visualisation and control software healthy and installing updates that add useful features and stuff. The only thing I want in return is, please explain what you're doing -- I want to learn about NMR."
That relationship was fruitful for quite a while! They got better tools for data analysis (I was able to give them better 3D color plots and stuff), and I learned a tremendous amount about NMR spectroscopy as it was being used in that lab. (I also got to look at a helium reclamation plant that they kept around because of all the helium-cooled stuff, and got to stand near a magnet that erased credit card magstripes on other floors of the building sometimes.)
Being able to explain scientific concepts to non-scientists is not "lying" or "marketing", it's fucking called "teaching".
If the audience shows up with the intent to understand the concepts, and agrees with some fundamental starting points, yes. What happens when neither of those is true?
Looks to me like they're talking about mandating interoperable data formats and protocols, not app portability. Sounds good to me! That's exactly what we should have.
I do not want to force Microsoft to make "Word" available on every platform, or force every platform vendor to create an emulated environment that runs a version of "Word". I want to force "significant" word processor vendors to offer import/export to compatible, open formats (doing so will cause market forces to force the insignificant vendors to do so too).
Same deal with the iOS, sure. Yeah, it's nice that "Pages" can spit out a Word or PDF version of a file and store it out to the "iwork.com" web site. Now what about just adding "OpenDocument" formats (or maybe just RTF) to the conversion list (or maybe even just completely document/open the XML format that Pages uses so we can do it ourselves with XSLT), and using a standard protocol like WebDAV do to the storing and fetching? That's exactly what should happen, as long as we're talking about "our data" (eg. our essays, our spreadsheets).
I don't want them to mandate openness with regards to application execution (eg. "everyone has to be able to install whatever they want wherever they want"), or with regards to client-side support of DRM (eg. "because Adobe's DRM is ubiquitous for ebooks lent by public libraries, every ebook reader is legally required to support Adobe's DRM"). Both of those, I'd consider to have more downside than upside. But for example mandating that every significant ebook reader be able to export annotations in an interoperable way (so I can mark up a Kindle copy of "1984" and import my own personal notes into an iBooks copy), that I'd welcome.
(Insert obligatory wishful thinking about the Voynich Manuscript here.)