the Apple Store licence is incompatible with the GPL
How? I mean, you should be able to quote where it is incompatible. 1) The binary is distributed via the App Store, but the App Store in effect is just the channel, like a FTP server or whatever else you would use. The App Store is a "third party" in the GPL sense and do not need to provide the source 2) People can get the source from the developers, which the App Store helpfully names and links to. 3) They can then modify, compile and distribute as they see fit.
However, the devices are picky about running the software, and it is not super-easy to build it, what with the need for XCode and the developer program membership.
But you know what? The GPL does not care about that. Nowhere does it say it should be easy to compile or modify.
And nowhere does it say that the user should be able to run the binary result (it is not an EULA).
So again, HOW is the GPL - a license between the developer and the user - incompatible with the App Store license?
If I where a software developer of VLC, I would be really pissed off about my work becoming the carrot to Apple's stick.
Why? I mean, it's not like they didn't know that as soon as they released their software under the GPL then anyone could modify and compile it for any platform they liked? If they wanted to retain control they should have picked a different license.
And: what 30% Apple tax? You mean the cut they take from paid apps (in case you missed it VLC is free) for providing all the services (payment, bandwidth, iTunes presence) you otherwise would have to get elsewhere? That cut is small compared to what a J2ME developer has to live with for instance. Do you also consider the 50% of CD proce that the store gets to be a "record store tax"?
The skills of the devs bothering to port it to OS X? As with most open-source projects, VLC is only as good on a given platform as the people interested in getting it to work there.
Other non-GPL software like Flip4Mac (to play/convert WMV) runs fine on OS X.
once Apple locks down their OS so that the only way to install software is through their app store
Fear-mongering much? There is absolutely no indication that will happen. Heck, it is more likely thet Lord RMS will decree that GNU/Linux shall not allow any non-GPL software to be installed.
Why can't they "modify or redistribute"? I mean, Apple lists the developer on the download page for the app, you contact them to get the source, and then edit and build. The GPL does not mandate it should be easy to do modifications and builds.
As Apple state in the terms you obviously did not read but just guessed at, any extra license - such as the GPL - between the developer/publisher and the person downloading, is of no concern to Apple.
Google "Nokia vs. Apple" someday. In case you recently crept up from under a rock, they are at it over patents and the licensing (or lack of) thereof. Perhaps VLC on the app store was considered to be beneficial to Apple, and Nokia got grumbly - until they discovered one of the developers worked for them...?
But are they distributing? If I compile a GPL app, put it in my public Dropbox folder and send someone a link, are Dropbox then distributing?
The fact that Apple claims they don't verify licenses does not make them less legally bound to oblige by them
Yes it does. Do the terms Digital Millenníum Copyright Act and safe harbor mean anything to you? They did what they were supposed to do, by taking down the "offending" app once they were notified. It is the submitter's responsibility to verify they have the right to distribute it, just as it is for people who upload videos to YouTube etc. The App Store applies SOME checks (mainly black box testing of runtime behavior and checks that it does not break other terms they have). But not that licensens like the GPL correctly apply.
No, he's legitimately protesting because Apple give you no way to install software on the hardware you own, without abiding to their terms.
Google "iPhone" and "jailbreak" sometime. Interesting stuff. Stuff that hackers have been used to do for ages, before the entitlement culture made people lazy bitches that demanded the manufacturer do the "hacking" for them.
In fact, they want to stop Apple from gaining profits stealing their work by copying it without respecting its license terms. What's wrong with that?
What "profits"? It's a free app! Submitted by some developer! Who is not Apple! Get a grip!
Why not? I can get an app from the app store, get the source from the developer, make my changes, build and submit (or do ad hoc distribution). Presto! Redistribution with modification.
Apple are not competing against this abstract entity "Android", they are competing against Samsung, SonyEricsson, Motorola, LG, HTC etc., all of which compete between themselves. If Apple has 30% of the market and "Android" has 70%, it does not help the other manufacturers because they get 10-15% each on average.
inferior Objective-C compared to Java
Ignorance (and it is Objective-C plus C++ plus C). Talk again after Oracle has raked OHA's asses over the coals for trying to bypass the J2ME licensing by making something that uses Java-the-language but not the VM on a mboile unit.
... by being on more handsets and (in the case of the USA) on more networks. How many new Android owners actually cared that their phone's OS was called Android? SonyEricsson's ads for the Xperia handsets, for instance, are far more interested in pushing their proprietary software (TimeScape, MediaScape) than pushing the Android angle. I mean, which manufacturer would want to say "and this runs an operating system that lets you continue to use your apps if you switch to LG or Samsung!"?
That does seem strange, yes... there should be no reason not to export to Latin America unless the countries insist on rules that Apple refuse to follow.
Then again, I live in Norway which has a small-ish market (but big enough for Apple to sell directly:) ) where e.g. Nintendo have chosen not to be represented (Nintendo products are imported by the Norwegian branch of a Swedish company)...
Visibility has been an issue: The MacHei$t and MacUpdate bundles that appear a couple of times a year with shareware + commercial software for a low total price has almost been the primary channel for a while now.
This store will make it easier to reach customers, manage payments (probably via the iTunes store) and all without having to sacrifice as much of their revenue as in the bundle case. They probably will need to rewrite all that license stuff they use today, though, and replace the use of the "de facto" standard for updating with Apple's mechanism. But all in all I'd say it's a boon for them.
Yes, I bet Adobe would drop 1/3 of their revenue in a hissy fit. (Mac users have already been bitten by Adobe, though, when Premiere was dropped and they had to switch to Apple's Final Cut product line...)
No, piracy is unlicensed copying. The product is not stolen, the developers are not raped, or whatever other laden words you could employ. Their State-granted monopoly of providing copies is violated. They do not actually lose anything but nor do they gain the income a paid license would bring.
Using license-based software without a license is illegal, and stealing is illegal, but two things being illegal do not make the two things the same.
There are cheaper alternatives (if one cannot afford Adobe's abhorrent prices), most of which employ the same user interface semantics (seeing how they have become a de facto standard). Personally I stick with Pixelmator, a shareware product for the Mac.
Slashdot Mirror
They did. But that does not help against pissy Apple-hating devs.
the Apple Store licence is incompatible with the GPL
How? I mean, you should be able to quote where it is incompatible.
1) The binary is distributed via the App Store, but the App Store in effect is just the channel, like a FTP server or whatever else you would use. The App Store is a "third party" in the GPL sense and do not need to provide the source
2) People can get the source from the developers, which the App Store helpfully names and links to.
3) They can then modify, compile and distribute as they see fit.
However, the devices are picky about running the software, and it is not super-easy to build it, what with the need for XCode and the developer program membership.
But you know what? The GPL does not care about that. Nowhere does it say it should be easy to compile or modify.
And nowhere does it say that the user should be able to run the binary result (it is not an EULA).
So again, HOW is the GPL - a license between the developer and the user - incompatible with the App Store license?
If I where a software developer of VLC, I would be really pissed off about my work becoming the carrot to Apple's stick.
Why? I mean, it's not like they didn't know that as soon as they released their software under the GPL then anyone could modify and compile it for any platform they liked? If they wanted to retain control they should have picked a different license.
And: what 30% Apple tax? You mean the cut they take from paid apps (in case you missed it VLC is free) for providing all the services (payment, bandwidth, iTunes presence) you otherwise would have to get elsewhere? That cut is small compared to what a J2ME developer has to live with for instance. Do you also consider the 50% of CD proce that the store gets to be a "record store tax"?
guess what's broken?
The skills of the devs bothering to port it to OS X? As with most open-source projects, VLC is only as good on a given platform as the people interested in getting it to work there.
Other non-GPL software like Flip4Mac (to play/convert WMV) runs fine on OS X.
once Apple locks down their OS so that the only way to install software is through their app store
Fear-mongering much? There is absolutely no indication that will happen. Heck, it is more likely thet Lord RMS will decree that GNU/Linux shall not allow any non-GPL software to be installed.
Why can't they "modify or redistribute"? I mean, Apple lists the developer on the download page for the app, you contact them to get the source, and then edit and build. The GPL does not mandate it should be easy to do modifications and builds.
As Apple state in the terms you obviously did not read but just guessed at, any extra license - such as the GPL - between the developer/publisher and the person downloading, is of no concern to Apple.
Google "Nokia vs. Apple" someday. In case you recently crept up from under a rock, they are at it over patents and the licensing (or lack of) thereof. Perhaps VLC on the app store was considered to be beneficial to Apple, and Nokia got grumbly - until they discovered one of the developers worked for them...?
But are they distributing? If I compile a GPL app, put it in my public Dropbox folder and send someone a link, are Dropbox then distributing?
The fact that Apple claims they don't verify licenses does not make them less legally bound to oblige by them
Yes it does. Do the terms Digital Millenníum Copyright Act and safe harbor mean anything to you? They did what they were supposed to do, by taking down the "offending" app once they were notified. It is the submitter's responsibility to verify they have the right to distribute it, just as it is for people who upload videos to YouTube etc. The App Store applies SOME checks (mainly black box testing of runtime behavior and checks that it does not break other terms they have). But not that licensens like the GPL correctly apply.
The GPL does NOT care about USE. Only on DISTRIBUTION of binaries and sources. It is a copy-license, not a "running" license. From GPL v2, term 0:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License.
Unlike Android devices, iOS doesn't have an option of installing from sources other than Apple's App Store.
Yes it does, but you would need to be an iOS developer to know that. And some Android devices are delivered in a way to prevent side-loading apps.
At least he had arguments, you just have swearing. What do you call that, "Proof by potty-mouthing"?
Or are you really angry at the total lack of VLC for Android?
No, he's legitimately protesting because Apple give you no way to install software on the hardware you own, without abiding to their terms.
Google "iPhone" and "jailbreak" sometime. Interesting stuff. Stuff that hackers have been used to do for ages, before the entitlement culture made people lazy bitches that demanded the manufacturer do the "hacking" for them.
In fact, they want to stop Apple from gaining profits stealing their work by copying it without respecting its license terms. What's wrong with that?
What "profits"? It's a free app! Submitted by some developer! Who is not Apple! Get a grip!
This makes me question your competence.
I am sure he's going to miss the arrogance of the Linux crowd when he switches to Mac...
Why not? I can get an app from the app store, get the source from the developer, make my changes, build and submit (or do ad hoc distribution). Presto! Redistribution with modification.
Um, VLC is available for the Mac desktop. And has been for ages. Why drag that into the discussion?
No, it's their chosen business model. Fuck this entitlement culture, start a business yourself if you think you know what is the right thing to do.
And in this case there is a chance the GPL prevents the app store from distributing the app - have we started to like GPL violations now?
Apple are not competing against this abstract entity "Android", they are competing against Samsung, SonyEricsson, Motorola, LG, HTC etc., all of which compete between themselves. If Apple has 30% of the market and "Android" has 70%, it does not help the other manufacturers because they get 10-15% each on average.
inferior Objective-C compared to Java
Ignorance (and it is Objective-C plus C++ plus C). Talk again after Oracle has raked OHA's asses over the coals for trying to bypass the J2ME licensing by making something that uses Java-the-language but not the VM on a mboile unit.
... by being on more handsets and (in the case of the USA) on more networks. How many new Android owners actually cared that their phone's OS was called Android? SonyEricsson's ads for the Xperia handsets, for instance, are far more interested in pushing their proprietary software (TimeScape, MediaScape) than pushing the Android angle. I mean, which manufacturer would want to say "and this runs an operating system that lets you continue to use your apps if you switch to LG or Samsung!"?
In Lovecraftian lore, he is an Old One, and a priest to the Old Gods, but not one of the gods himself. Think Yog-Sothoth etc. for the gods.
Oh, and lest I forget. Hastur! Hastur! Hastur!
Lock-in as in: video streaming company getting a "stream" of unsubscribing users because they no longer can use the service...
That does seem strange, yes... there should be no reason not to export to Latin America unless the countries insist on rules that Apple refuse to follow.
Then again, I live in Norway which has a small-ish market (but big enough for Apple to sell directly :) ) where e.g. Nintendo have chosen not to be represented (Nintendo products are imported by the Norwegian branch of a Swedish company)...
Visibility has been an issue: The MacHei$t and MacUpdate bundles that appear a couple of times a year with shareware + commercial software for a low total price has almost been the primary channel for a while now.
This store will make it easier to reach customers, manage payments (probably via the iTunes store) and all without having to sacrifice as much of their revenue as in the bundle case. They probably will need to rewrite all that license stuff they use today, though, and replace the use of the "de facto" standard for updating with Apple's mechanism. But all in all I'd say it's a boon for them.
Yes, I bet Adobe would drop 1/3 of their revenue in a hissy fit. (Mac users have already been bitten by Adobe, though, when Premiere was dropped and they had to switch to Apple's Final Cut product line...)
No, piracy is unlicensed copying. The product is not stolen, the developers are not raped, or whatever other laden words you could employ. Their State-granted monopoly of providing copies is violated. They do not actually lose anything but nor do they gain the income a paid license would bring.
Using license-based software without a license is illegal, and stealing is illegal, but two things being illegal do not make the two things the same.
There are cheaper alternatives (if one cannot afford Adobe's abhorrent prices), most of which employ the same user interface semantics (seeing how they have become a de facto standard). Personally I stick with Pixelmator, a shareware product for the Mac.
But we need to ally with him to fight the robotic Replicators coming out of the Redmond system...