Apple doesn't care, but 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.
And how is this the fault of Apple again? They got a takedown notice; they complied. Oh, right, because it's Apple.
It's not Apple's fault that it was pulled, but it's partly Apple's fault that it could be pulled. Which is OK, they don't have to allow everything and is fully within their right to impose restrictions on distribution. Just be aware that this is why the GPL was developed, and why software licensed under it will have problems with it.
What are you smoking? A developer ported VLC to iOS. Apple accepted the application. Later one of the original developers of the VLC objected to Apple distributing his code due to licensing concerns. So Apple removed the app. Your position is that Apple should know everything about every single application that is submitted to it? That's as asinine as saying craigslist should know that every item sold using their website is legal and not stolen.
The original developer objected because it violated the licensed he originally developed VLC under. That simple. You are not allowed to take VLC and do whatever you want with it. You should respect software freedom. If you don't, you don't get to distribute VLC. That's why he could request that the app was pulled, because it did not conform with the license he used.
It's unhealthy if your goal is to dominate your users. It prioritizes computing freedom.
Yes it complicates distribution. But if the developers didn't wanted to sign up for that free software thing they should have picked a different licensed.
App developers deserve to distribute their software under their own terms. Apple limits this and the way users are allowed to use the software. This breaks the fundamental principles of free software, which says that you the user should not be dominated by someone else in order to do your computing. Apple does not allow developers to distribute their software under fair conditions.
You can't take it back once you have given someone code licensed under GPL. They are entitled to distributing it. You can't go to for example Debian and say that they are no longer allowed to distribute your GPL software. You can only say that if they violated the terms in the license.
Sounds reasonable. The end result is still that the app store is unhealthy for software licensed under GPL, and that's because Apple insists on abusing its users. If they did not abuse their users and allowed software to be distributed under fair conditions, GPL would be just fine.
The Dev in question happens to work for a competing phone manufacturer
That has absolutely nothing to do with wether or not the app was distributed in conjunction with the license. The license did not allow distribution under unfair conditions. Distributing the app in the app store implied unfair conditions. That's why he could request that the app was pulled. Just because you're a copyright holder doesn't mean that you can do that, it has do actually be distributed against your license.
As a copyright holder you can only request that the app is removed if distributing it violates the license under which you contributed. Apple violated those terms by violating users. GPL is very clear on this, you either distribute under fair terms - or you don't distribute at all. If Apple had ben compliant, no one had been able to request that it was pulled.
The UI layer is MPL, but the actual guts of the app is libVLC which is not rewritten and licensed under LGPL. So, unless they rewrote that and I missed it I don't see how they can be in the clear.
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.
Yes. I meet a surprising amount of developers that don't understand the difference between them. Bring Visual C++ into the mix while you're at it and now they are even more confused.
If you're at the point where you have to compromise then why don't you just use something like BSD or Apache? Free but still restrictive like LGPL sounds like a really bad compromise which just complicated things.
And just to point out. Just because Apple isn't interested in gcc anymore and doesn't ship with it doesn't mean that you can't use it. Gcc works just fine on OS X, even modern versions.
It actually does. I guess it might depend on which jurisdiction you're in but usually you as a copyright holder can set any term you like, more or less. Some software is even licensed different specifically for open source work, like for example IntelliJ IDEA which you usually have to pay for but can get it for free if you're using it for open source. That's the same way that Microsoft can sell you a cheaper copy of Office which you agree should not be used commercially.
When you modify the file to add the license header you create a derivative work and is now a copyright holder to that work. Not a sole copyright holder, but a copyright holder; and can add your own license as long as it is compatible with the terms in the upstream license. I'm now guessing wildly.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple doesn't care, but 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.
And how is this the fault of Apple again? They got a takedown notice; they complied. Oh, right, because it's Apple.
It's not Apple's fault that it was pulled, but it's partly Apple's fault that it could be pulled. Which is OK, they don't have to allow everything and is fully within their right to impose restrictions on distribution. Just be aware that this is why the GPL was developed, and why software licensed under it will have problems with it.
What are you smoking? A developer ported VLC to iOS. Apple accepted the application. Later one of the original developers of the VLC objected to Apple distributing his code due to licensing concerns. So Apple removed the app. Your position is that Apple should know everything about every single application that is submitted to it? That's as asinine as saying craigslist should know that every item sold using their website is legal and not stolen.
The original developer objected because it violated the licensed he originally developed VLC under. That simple. You are not allowed to take VLC and do whatever you want with it. You should respect software freedom. If you don't, you don't get to distribute VLC. That's why he could request that the app was pulled, because it did not conform with the license he used.
Because you know, that's totally the spirit of open source.
This is the difference between open source and free software. VLC is free software. It has nothing to do with open source.
It's unhealthy if your goal is to dominate your users. It prioritizes computing freedom.
Yes it complicates distribution. But if the developers didn't wanted to sign up for that free software thing they should have picked a different licensed.
App developers deserve to distribute their software under their own terms. Apple limits this and the way users are allowed to use the software. This breaks the fundamental principles of free software, which says that you the user should not be dominated by someone else in order to do your computing. Apple does not allow developers to distribute their software under fair conditions.
You can't take it back once you have given someone code licensed under GPL. They are entitled to distributing it. You can't go to for example Debian and say that they are no longer allowed to distribute your GPL software. You can only say that if they violated the terms in the license.
Sounds reasonable. The end result is still that the app store is unhealthy for software licensed under GPL, and that's because Apple insists on abusing its users. If they did not abuse their users and allowed software to be distributed under fair conditions, GPL would be just fine.
Yeah, lets be clear about this apparently...
The Dev in question happens to work for a competing phone manufacturer
That has absolutely nothing to do with wether or not the app was distributed in conjunction with the license. The license did not allow distribution under unfair conditions. Distributing the app in the app store implied unfair conditions. That's why he could request that the app was pulled. Just because you're a copyright holder doesn't mean that you can do that, it has do actually be distributed against your license.
As a copyright holder you can only request that the app is removed if distributing it violates the license under which you contributed. Apple violated those terms by violating users. GPL is very clear on this, you either distribute under fair terms - or you don't distribute at all. If Apple had ben compliant, no one had been able to request that it was pulled.
Either that, or Apple could stop abusing its users.
The UI layer is MPL, but the actual guts of the app is libVLC which is not rewritten and licensed under LGPL. So, unless they rewrote that and I missed it I don't see how they can be in the clear.
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.
Not really. Windows XP is still supported. It's XP that will be like legacy Android all over again.
Yes. I meet a surprising amount of developers that don't understand the difference between them. Bring Visual C++ into the mix while you're at it and now they are even more confused.
I often get that reaction from people that can't see the difference between C++ and let's say MFC.
If you're at the point where you have to compromise then why don't you just use something like BSD or Apache? Free but still restrictive like LGPL sounds like a really bad compromise which just complicated things.
More specifically they don't do GPLv3, but has no direct problem with using and contributing to GPLv2.
And just to point out. Just because Apple isn't interested in gcc anymore and doesn't ship with it doesn't mean that you can't use it. Gcc works just fine on OS X, even modern versions.
It actually does. I guess it might depend on which jurisdiction you're in but usually you as a copyright holder can set any term you like, more or less. Some software is even licensed different specifically for open source work, like for example IntelliJ IDEA which you usually have to pay for but can get it for free if you're using it for open source. That's the same way that Microsoft can sell you a cheaper copy of Office which you agree should not be used commercially.
Emacs is pretty much an IDE; an IDE with a suboptimal text editor I would say, but the SCM integration is quite neat.
When you modify the file to add the license header you create a derivative work and is now a copyright holder to that work. Not a sole copyright holder, but a copyright holder; and can add your own license as long as it is compatible with the terms in the upstream license. I'm now guessing wildly.
Forget text editors. Real developers adjust bits directly in memory using the switches on the operator panel.
I believe so, or do you suggest that they are equal?
Well, you can remove the battery. It may be news to some but many things are not impossible just because it can't be done in 2 seconds.