The license did not allow distribution under unfair conditions. Distributing the app in the app store implied unfair conditions.
You're being vague. What specific point of the GPL prevented it from being distributed in the App Store.
Just because you're a copyright holder doesn't mean that you can do that, it has do actually be distributed against your license.
Of course a copyright holder can stop their app being distributed. They don't need to have any license at all. Of course they might hold a contract with a publisher that guarantees the publisher a certain period of distribution. But then they are being bound by the contract, it's not that he doesn't have the fundamental right to control of copies being made of his work.
If anyone feels blocked from developing iOS software by the fact that they don't already have a Mac and can't afford one, then I'm happy. That person isn't a serious developer, and will only end up adding crap to the app store.
"What about my freedom to charge users?" Firstly the GPL doesn't prevent that.
You understand that, and yet you don't understand that the App Store doesn't prevent GPLed software from being put on it. Wilful ignorance is not an argument.
Secondly you seem to want to use some random developer's code for your own purposes without paying him.
It's not very free if developers are obligated to pay for it. There's nothing wrong with non-free software. put don't pretend it's free if it's not.
If you don't like the GPL then just pretend that nothing based on the GPL exists.
That's exactly what most professional developers do. It's treated as a virus.
It's not Apple's fault that it was pulled, but it's partly Apple's fault that it could be pulled.
No it's not. Apple has a legal duty to act on a DMCA takedown notice.
And even if that were not the case, it would be be a heap of bad, legally and morally if the authors of apps couldn't get their apps taken off sale if that's what they want.
Such a tactic won't work on iOS. Firstly once it gets told no twice, the user doesn't even get the option again, the app will always receive a no from the OS.
Secondly, any unreasonable demands such as you outline would probably result in a rejection by the app reviewers. iOS apps are expected to continue to be able to do things that can reasonably be done without the requested permission.
There is an API to know whether the app has a permission or not. If a twitter app is saying you posted from central Borneo when you didn't, that would be the apps fault. But it probably wouldn't get past an app store review anyway.
App developers deserve to distribute their software under their own terms.
App developers don't deserve anything. They are business people that take attractive opportunities where they present themselves. And vast numbers of them have seen the Apple App Store as a huge opportunity. And they chose that opportunity knowing how the App Store works.
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.
It does no such thing. If an app developer wants to distribute his code, he can host it on his own website. There's a link to his website from the Apple App Store page.
Indeed many people's reading of the GPL is that there is no problem putting it on the Apple App Store. Many GPL apps are already there.
The problem with GPLers is that are trying to be disruptive to the established software distribution methods that long preceeded the license. But they seem to think they deserve everyone to change to suit them and their ways. But they don't. Basically GPL is a religion, full of people that demand every other way is wicked, and everyone must follow their holy document. They're cranks.
Er yes it is. It is entirely Apple's fault. They were fully aware of the GPL and decided to make terms incompatible with is. They have no obligation not to do this, but it doesn't make it their fault and does not absolve them of responsibility.
Complete nonsense. Commercial software distributed as binaries predated the GPL. It was the GPL that was set up to try and disrupt that. It's author's intent was to stop distribution of simple binary software. That attempt is failing.
Apple created a commercial software store, that just as has been done since times long before the GPL, distributed software binaries. For money and for free.
It's completely agnostic to open source and the GPL. There's nothing to stop a developer distributing source for their app, either on their own website, or as an option to view/export or whatever the source from within the app. No Apple rules get in the way at all. But it's not source code distribution platform in itself. It's a software binary distribution business. That's the nature of it.
The thing that stopped VLC first time around was one of it's developers (who happened to be a Nokia employee) complaining about the other VLC developers that put it on the App Store. His interpretation of the GPL right to wrong is that the source, as text, should be downloadable from within the App Store.
If there is "fault", it's the GPLs, and it's adherents. Again, none of this is Apple's doing. As far as Apple is concerned VLC could have been there all along, just as plenty of other GPL software is.
The idea that people like you try to perpetuate, that Apple wrote rules within the App Store terms intended to exclude GPL is pure myth.
Perhaps they did the sensible thing, and link to the built in video framework for things that it supports. That way they only have to provide for those video formats that are unsupported by Core Video.
It's not Apple doing the abusing. It's the GPL that is incompatible with the App Store. There's no Apple rule that stops GPL software appearing on the App Store.
The only reason users of the iPhone haven't had VLC for all this time is the GPL and the decision by it's developers to remove it. It's not as a result of anything Apple has done.
It's good to see an outbreak of common sense, and the use of a non-GPL license this time round.
"At introduction, a PC with 64 kB of RAM and a single 5.25-inch floppy drive and monitor sold for US $3,005 ($ 7,588 in today's dollars)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC
Clearly it was far too expensive for most consumers people to afford. But it led to an industry in which ever better PCs became ever cheaper.
Whilst that won't be as dramatic with electric cars, they will certainly reduce in price over the years to become comparable with ICE. And as the price of fossil fuels continues to rise, EVs will become better value over their whole lifetimes even quicker.
I spent $6,600 on my current car... Of course, if you're calling it the iPhone in that everyone else is buying it and I'm laughing at how much money they're spending on phone
Perhaps people are laughing at how much you spent on your car. Of course they would be moronic people. Laughing at other people's product choices is a particularly small minded activity.
It'd be extremely useful for one of those music festivals where there are acres of camping. A 3m square is perfect for giving an address of your tent to your friends.
Not a significant problem. It's localised into the major languages. If you're French, you get 3 French words. And of course if you are using the English version, typing the french 3 words in will still work.
But the number of times you want to communicate a non-address location to someone who doesn't speak the same language are few and far between anyway.
Just yesterday, I was meeting up with others in a park tjhat I didn't know. I got the message "at the top car park of the park". Notions such as "the top car park" are not so easy to find on a map. There was certainly no way for me to find it with my GPS. It just had the outline of the park itself. I had to find a local person to ask them directions to the top car park.
With this system, they could have arranged the meet-up point at the nicest part of the park, and everyone with a smartphone would have been able to go straight there.
Just think of the possibilities: will it be more lucrative to charge fees for service? Or maybe mine people's queries for marketable insights about their behavior?
This is one of those rare things - a startup with a real business model that includes where the money comes from. The 3 words bit is the free service that promotes the idea. They make their money by selling an optional single word of the buyers choice. By subscription.
If the idea takes off, they'll make money. If it doesn't take off then advertising and selling access to 3 words won't save them.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple don't have to care about the GPL. It's not a law. Copyright is the law, and that's what they need to observe.
And what restrictions? Which Apple ones, which GPL ones? Do you even know?
The terms of the App Store were in violation of the program's license
In what way, specifically?
The license did not allow distribution under unfair conditions. Distributing the app in the app store implied unfair conditions.
You're being vague. What specific point of the GPL prevented it from being distributed in the App Store.
Just because you're a copyright holder doesn't mean that you can do that, it has do actually be distributed against your license.
Of course a copyright holder can stop their app being distributed. They don't need to have any license at all. Of course they might hold a contract with a publisher that guarantees the publisher a certain period of distribution. But then they are being bound by the contract, it's not that he doesn't have the fundamental right to control of copies being made of his work.
The developer canceling the original VLC is just exhibiting petty Apple-hatred, not helping open source (or the people who use it) in any way.
Well, as a Nokia employee it was more like petty point scoring for his own company vs a competitor.
No one has any obligations under the GPL. It's not a law. It's a non legal document written by a freak.
Distributors only have obligations under copyright.
Who's selecting randomly?
If anyone feels blocked from developing iOS software by the fact that they don't already have a Mac and can't afford one, then I'm happy. That person isn't a serious developer, and will only end up adding crap to the app store.
"What about my freedom to charge users?"
Firstly the GPL doesn't prevent that.
You understand that, and yet you don't understand that the App Store doesn't prevent GPLed software from being put on it. Wilful ignorance is not an argument.
Secondly you seem to want to use some random developer's code for your own purposes without paying him.
It's not very free if developers are obligated to pay for it. There's nothing wrong with non-free software. put don't pretend it's free if it's not.
If you don't like the GPL then just pretend that nothing based on the GPL exists.
That's exactly what most professional developers do. It's treated as a virus.
It's not Apple's fault that it was pulled, but it's partly Apple's fault that it could be pulled.
No it's not. Apple has a legal duty to act on a DMCA takedown notice.
And even if that were not the case, it would be be a heap of bad, legally and morally if the authors of apps couldn't get their apps taken off sale if that's what they want.
Such a tactic won't work on iOS. Firstly once it gets told no twice, the user doesn't even get the option again, the app will always receive a no from the OS.
Secondly, any unreasonable demands such as you outline would probably result in a rejection by the app reviewers. iOS apps are expected to continue to be able to do things that can reasonably be done without the requested permission.
There is an API to know whether the app has a permission or not. If a twitter app is saying you posted from central Borneo when you didn't, that would be the apps fault. But it probably wouldn't get past an app store review anyway.
App developers deserve to distribute their software under their own terms.
App developers don't deserve anything. They are business people that take attractive opportunities where they present themselves. And vast numbers of them have seen the Apple App Store as a huge opportunity. And they chose that opportunity knowing how the App Store works.
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.
It does no such thing. If an app developer wants to distribute his code, he can host it on his own website. There's a link to his website from the Apple App Store page.
Indeed many people's reading of the GPL is that there is no problem putting it on the Apple App Store. Many GPL apps are already there.
The problem with GPLers is that are trying to be disruptive to the established software distribution methods that long preceeded the license. But they seem to think they deserve everyone to change to suit them and their ways. But they don't. Basically GPL is a religion, full of people that demand every other way is wicked, and everyone must follow their holy document. They're cranks.
Er yes it is. It is entirely Apple's fault. They were fully aware of the GPL and decided to make terms incompatible with is. They have no obligation not to do this, but it doesn't make it their fault and does not absolve them of responsibility.
Complete nonsense. Commercial software distributed as binaries predated the GPL. It was the GPL that was set up to try and disrupt that. It's author's intent was to stop distribution of simple binary software. That attempt is failing.
Apple created a commercial software store, that just as has been done since times long before the GPL, distributed software binaries. For money and for free.
It's completely agnostic to open source and the GPL. There's nothing to stop a developer distributing source for their app, either on their own website, or as an option to view/export or whatever the source from within the app. No Apple rules get in the way at all. But it's not source code distribution platform in itself. It's a software binary distribution business. That's the nature of it.
The thing that stopped VLC first time around was one of it's developers (who happened to be a Nokia employee) complaining about the other VLC developers that put it on the App Store. His interpretation of the GPL right to wrong is that the source, as text, should be downloadable from within the App Store.
If there is "fault", it's the GPLs, and it's adherents. Again, none of this is Apple's doing. As far as Apple is concerned VLC could have been there all along, just as plenty of other GPL software is.
The idea that people like you try to perpetuate, that Apple wrote rules within the App Store terms intended to exclude GPL is pure myth.
Dual licensing to get around the shortcomings of the GPL on the other hand is eminently sensible.
GPLs loss is everyone else's gain.
Perhaps they did the sensible thing, and link to the built in video framework for things that it supports. That way they only have to provide for those video formats that are unsupported by Core Video.
It's not Apple doing the abusing. It's the GPL that is incompatible with the App Store. There's no Apple rule that stops GPL software appearing on the App Store.
The only reason users of the iPhone haven't had VLC for all this time is the GPL and the decision by it's developers to remove it. It's not as a result of anything Apple has done.
It's good to see an outbreak of common sense, and the use of a non-GPL license this time round.
"At introduction, a PC with 64 kB of RAM and a single 5.25-inch floppy drive and monitor sold for US $3,005 ($ 7,588 in today's dollars)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC
Clearly it was far too expensive for most consumers people to afford. But it led to an industry in which ever better PCs became ever cheaper.
Whilst that won't be as dramatic with electric cars, they will certainly reduce in price over the years to become comparable with ICE. And as the price of fossil fuels continues to rise, EVs will become better value over their whole lifetimes even quicker.
I spent $6,600 on my current car ... Of course, if you're calling it the iPhone in that everyone else is buying it and I'm laughing at how much money they're spending on phone
Perhaps people are laughing at how much you spent on your car. Of course they would be moronic people. Laughing at other people's product choices is a particularly small minded activity.
There are people that are against all those forms of energy. But they're not the SAME people.
As far as I'm can tell most of those promoting "green" electricity are the same people saying "no" to all forms of generating that energy.
Then you don't know either group.
It'd be extremely useful for one of those music festivals where there are acres of camping. A 3m square is perfect for giving an address of your tent to your friends.
Not a significant problem. It's localised into the major languages. If you're French, you get 3 French words. And of course if you are using the English version, typing the french 3 words in will still work.
But the number of times you want to communicate a non-address location to someone who doesn't speak the same language are few and far between anyway.
It's a free app. It needs to be free as they need critical mass to get it adopted.
Their business model is selling user selected one-words.
Just yesterday, I was meeting up with others in a park tjhat I didn't know. I got the message "at the top car park of the park". Notions such as "the top car park" are not so easy to find on a map. There was certainly no way for me to find it with my GPS. It just had the outline of the park itself. I had to find a local person to ask them directions to the top car park.
With this system, they could have arranged the meet-up point at the nicest part of the park, and everyone with a smartphone would have been able to go straight there.
Just think of the possibilities: will it be more lucrative to charge fees for service? Or maybe mine people's queries for marketable insights about their behavior?
This is one of those rare things - a startup with a real business model that includes where the money comes from. The 3 words bit is the free service that promotes the idea. They make their money by selling an optional single word of the buyers choice. By subscription.
If the idea takes off, they'll make money. If it doesn't take off then advertising and selling access to 3 words won't save them.
There's an app for that.
Yeah, I get it, they're trying to be for latitude/longitude what DNS is for IP space. But silly "flying.monkey.dung" names isn't the way to do that.
So you purchase a "OneWord" of your choice. Just as you'd purchase a domain name of your choice.
The 3 word system is the marketing system. Their business model is selling location domain names that people chose.