Some VLC developers (for Mac mainly), with the company Applidium, have ported VLC on iOS. Applidium published it on the store, for free.
Some developer complained (quite lately, btw...) afterwards and quoted a FSF analysis. Their analysis was totally wrong (spoke about redistribution), and based on old version of AppStore terms.
After my remarks about changes of the AppStore terms that made this analysis obsolete and wrong, they shifted their criticism onto another part, which was the "usage" part of the ToS. They complained that the terms did not allow all uses, especially commercial ones.
Indeed, one part could be interpreted in different ways. Therefore, I've mailed Apple Copyright Agent for explanation, twice. Once in November, once in December...
Apple has refused to answer, to explain or to help in any matter. They then decided to pull the Application unilaterally from the AppStore.
Of course, they are allowed to do that, and noone can complain, but this is yet another push from Apple against VLC, that adds to the very long list of past issues. It just makes me think Apple doesn't really want competition...
Since volumes have been written about Apple's idiotic app store rules already, I just want to say thanks for making one of the best pieces of software out there! I've been happily using it for years and will continue to use it for years on less restrictive platforms.
Apple doesn't have to spend their time discussing with you about legal dispute among copyright holders. If anything, you are lucky that they don't ban the developers who posted the app in the first place. I wouldn't mind a policy that said: "if you ever get us in a copyright dispute, you are banned forever from our store"
Instead, Apple was told that the app had a copyright problem, and it took them 2 months to take it down. Yes, it's slow, but no, they are not evil in doing so.
There are dozens upon dozens of video players on the App Store including commercial services like Netflix and Hulu Plus that directly compete with Apple's own offerings. Claiming this is an anti-competive move on Apple's part frankly makes no sense at all.
There is another media player for sale based on VLC still on the App Store that you should look into: http://itunes.apple.com/app/id406779775?mt=8 (the licensing incompatibility likely applies to it as well)
Would you be willing to be more specific about the terms that changed in the Apple TOS, and what they are now? And which license terms are in dispute about commercial use? I've read the FSF post about VLC dated october ( http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/vlc-enforcement ) is it safe to say you disagree with the FSF here?
I want to thank Jean and all VideoLan and Applidium developers for their great softwares that I use on my Mac and iPod touch.
I just don't agree that Apple pulled VLC because of their fear of competition. They did not remove BUZZ Player,OPlayer,yxplayer, CineXPlayer, etc.
I just think App Store is getting very big and hard to manage for Apple so they may make mistakes or they just chose the easy way, pulling the App instead of further investigating the copyright claims.
I hope you can find a solution and VLC appears again in App store soon.
"Of course, they are allowed to do that, and noone can complain, but this is yet another push from Apple against VLC, that adds to the very long list of past issues. It just makes me think Apple doesn't really want competition"
Maybe they don't want the hassle of dealing with flakey politics-ridden groups who don't have their shit together.
The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party
Now:
...unless the App Store Product is covered by a valid end user license agreement entered into between you and the licensor of the App Store Product (the "Licensor"), in which case the Licensor's end user license agreement will apply
So either GPLv2 is a valid end user license agreement, or if it isn't, one just needs some out-of-bound mechanism that users and developers agree on GPLv2.
I hate to say it, but this is why I have a big problem with the GPL.
Not for infrastructure software like operating systems, web servers, and databases (where I think it is appropriate and beneficial), but for code intended for use in end-user applications (including web applications).
I think licenses like BSD, MIT, and Apache spur more innovation in those cases. You can make the argument that companies have no incentive to contribute back to open source projects without copyleft licenses, but projects like Webkit and Rails have proven otherwise.
I hate to say it, but this is why I have a big problem with
the GPL.
Why do you hate it? It's OK, I am disliking GPL (maybe not GPL itself, but the politics around it) more and more.
My take is: GPL was created when a lot was different. The main product was source code, the main users were programmers/admins. The bulk of the source was for tools/infrastructure.
Now we have millions of users who could not care less about source code and modifying it. All they want is to get an app and use it, period. GPL does not fit well into this scenario, IMHO.
So is this what GPL developers consider a "win?" The GPL seems designed to create something for developers to fuss about. The net effect is pretty stupid compared to BSD/MIT/Apache. It's been long ago proved that the community deals fairly with contributions of any kind. The only difference then with GPL is that it locks out many legitimate uses (businesses) that might have otherwise been available. That's not "free," that's "restrictive," no matter how many times Stallman bangs his drum.
No this is what a GPL developer considers a "loss". Specifically, yet another demonstration of why developing for someone else's walled garden is a bad idea.
What a bunch of ugly, hateful people. VLC developers devote thousands of hours of their own free time so users can have a FREE kick-ass piece of software, and what they get in return is being called "freetard", "prick" and "asshole", just because Apple refuses to honour their license.
I thought my opinion of Apple fanboys was pretty low already, but it seems it's got much further down to go.
How does this work for people who've downloaded it? I've got the better part of Family Guy's run on my iPhone playing with VLC. That combo has brought me more enjoyment than all of my other apps combined.
On a side note: I recently made the difficult decision of creating a library from scratch since the only one available was GPL. I guess that was the correct decision after all?
People have posted links to the original thread and the FSF's long analysis, but a short summary might be possible. I shall attempt one.
One of GPL's requirements is that when you distribute GPLed code, you can not impose any additional terms on the recipient.
When a user obtains an app from the App Store, Apple makes a copy of the app and that is downloaded to the user. This means that Apple needs permission of the copyright owner to do this. For most apps, there is no problem, because the developer owns the copyright, and grants Apple permission to make and distribute copies.
When the developer has included GPL code that he does not own, and whose owner has not granted an exception for Apple, Apple has to obey GPL. That means imposing no terms beyond GPL on the recipient.
Unfortunately, Apple does impose terms on the user--you aren't allowed to use the App Store unless you agree to Apple's terms, which include limits on what you can do with the downloaded software.
This is the original post by Rémi Denis-Courmont, on the VLC developers mailing list pertaining to the takedown notice filed at the end of October. In it he links to another FSF post about incompatibilities between the App Store licensing terms, and the GPL, as well as his rational for filing the takedown notice
EDIT: Sorry Callahad for the dupe, you typed faster than I did.
Looks like Rémi Denis-Courmont pulled his blog and his resume. What is going on there? His posting is aggregated on planet vlc, but it does not link to the original.
I would like to understand something here. As far as I was explained by experts (I'm not a lawyer) GPL license does not allow to publish software on closed / proprietary platforms controlled by ToS similar to Apple AppStore. My understanding it is not that VLC on iOS is breaking AppStore ToS but GPL license which is very restrictive when you release something based on it but it is not open sourced.
I don't have an iPhone because of this walled garden approach to software on it. I'm glad that this has happened as maybe there will be fewer walled garden type situations in the future. It is a pity for users who miss out on VLC but they've made a choice by buying a product that's locked to a single marketplace for apps and they have to live with that.
Putting aside all the issues involved here, what I don't understand to begin with is why any other iOS dev has not done an app that can play back the kind of AVI files most people have in their collections to begin with. Is it that hard? Or did devs shy away from it because they never expected Apple to approve such an app? Now that Apple has, will someone else come in with something else? This is a capability that's truly needed. There's just no way I'm going to ever convert my AVIs to MP4s. It'd be faster and cheaper just to get an Archos Android tablet to play those videos. (Note I mention Archos specifically because for years they've developed that capability and have ported that native software to now run under Android.)
This is very disappointing. VLC is a great product and so are the iPhone and iPad devices. Not having to convert video and being able to play them on the devices was very welcome!
It's such a shame... This to me has a similar kind of feel to patent trolling.
Why isn't there a third-party app store, by the way? iPhone only runs executables signed by Apple? I suppose that on Android, if Google's Android market sucks anyone can create a new market that ranks the applications better or simply lures in better apps?
On Android you'd be able to just put your app on your website and let people download it. Or email it to them as an attachment. Or any of the other traditional ways of distributing applications.
Yes, in a stock iOS installation Apples App Store is the only way to install software. Each package must be digitally signed by Apple. That is what 'jailbreaking' is all about: exploiting a flaw in some existing software to execute an arbitrary binary which breaks that restriction. Then you can use third party software repos.
"This end should not have come to a surprise to anyone."
Also, is it terribly selfish of me to find this enjoyable partly because of the App Store apologists and partly because it means there will be more focus on VLC for Android?
The VLC iOS app was developed by a company in France named Applidium, not the core VLC dev team. Applidium develops iOS apps.
So no. This does not mean there will be more focus on VLC for Android.
If anything I think this is a bad thing for all software currently using the GPL.
I understand the claim and ultimately it's the author's decision, but I feel that using the GPL in this fashion is ironic at best and hypocritical at worst.
[+] [-] jbk|15 years ago|reply
I've written the most important analysis on the matter http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Novembe... and http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Decembe...
Some VLC developers (for Mac mainly), with the company Applidium, have ported VLC on iOS. Applidium published it on the store, for free.
Some developer complained (quite lately, btw...) afterwards and quoted a FSF analysis. Their analysis was totally wrong (spoke about redistribution), and based on old version of AppStore terms.
After my remarks about changes of the AppStore terms that made this analysis obsolete and wrong, they shifted their criticism onto another part, which was the "usage" part of the ToS. They complained that the terms did not allow all uses, especially commercial ones.
Indeed, one part could be interpreted in different ways. Therefore, I've mailed Apple Copyright Agent for explanation, twice. Once in November, once in December...
Apple has refused to answer, to explain or to help in any matter. They then decided to pull the Application unilaterally from the AppStore.
Of course, they are allowed to do that, and noone can complain, but this is yet another push from Apple against VLC, that adds to the very long list of past issues. It just makes me think Apple doesn't really want competition...
[+] [-] martythemaniak|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alain94040|15 years ago|reply
Instead, Apple was told that the app had a copyright problem, and it took them 2 months to take it down. Yes, it's slow, but no, they are not evil in doing so.
[+] [-] st3fan|15 years ago|reply
http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc/2011-January/01979...
Where you say:
"No. Apple decided to remove VLC from the AppStore by themselves."
You are either blatantly lying or you have no idea what actually happened.
Apple responded to a copyright infringement notification like they always do: they removed the app from sale.
This is the direct action of your colleague in the VLC project, Rémi Denis-Courmont.
Stop blaming Apple for removing the app. YOU GUYS, the VLC project, are the ones who are playing this game.
[+] [-] lwhi|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonkester|15 years ago|reply
First, what's an FSF analysis? And who is the developer in question? One of yours? One of Apple's? Random guy off the street?
What exactly was your application doing that Apple didn't like?
[+] [-] jsz0|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanpetrich|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trotsky|15 years ago|reply
Thanks for any insight!
EDIT: This seems to cover the technical questions: http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Decembe...
I'd still be curious if you have any insight on current FSF thinking here.
[+] [-] ali-r|15 years ago|reply
I just don't agree that Apple pulled VLC because of their fear of competition. They did not remove BUZZ Player,OPlayer,yxplayer, CineXPlayer, etc.
I just think App Store is getting very big and hard to manage for Apple so they may make mistakes or they just chose the easy way, pulling the App instead of further investigating the copyright claims.
I hope you can find a solution and VLC appears again in App store soon.
[+] [-] macco|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonhendry|15 years ago|reply
Maybe they don't want the hassle of dealing with flakey politics-ridden groups who don't have their shit together.
[+] [-] sanxiyn|15 years ago|reply
Apple changed App Store terms. Previously:
The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party
Now:
...unless the App Store Product is covered by a valid end user license agreement entered into between you and the licensor of the App Store Product (the "Licensor"), in which case the Licensor's end user license agreement will apply
So either GPLv2 is a valid end user license agreement, or if it isn't, one just needs some out-of-bound mechanism that users and developers agree on GPLv2.
[+] [-] jarin|15 years ago|reply
Not for infrastructure software like operating systems, web servers, and databases (where I think it is appropriate and beneficial), but for code intended for use in end-user applications (including web applications).
I think licenses like BSD, MIT, and Apache spur more innovation in those cases. You can make the argument that companies have no incentive to contribute back to open source projects without copyleft licenses, but projects like Webkit and Rails have proven otherwise.
[+] [-] rimantas|15 years ago|reply
My take is: GPL was created when a lot was different. The main product was source code, the main users were programmers/admins. The bulk of the source was for tools/infrastructure.
Now we have millions of users who could not care less about source code and modifying it. All they want is to get an app and use it, period. GPL does not fit well into this scenario, IMHO.
[+] [-] naner|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quadhome|15 years ago|reply
Though, perhaps the differences in innovation in the BSD kernels vs. Linux is demonstrative?
[+] [-] dman|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] burgerbrain|15 years ago|reply
Then don't use GPL'd code. End of discussion.
[+] [-] oslic|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] voxcogitatio|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanpetrich|15 years ago|reply
Adjusted source to allow installation to /Applications is here: http://rpetri.ch/github/MobileVLC
[+] [-] jbk|15 years ago|reply
Could you submit patches that make sense for upstream?
[+] [-] gaiusparx|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] martythemaniak|15 years ago|reply
I thought my opinion of Apple fanboys was pretty low already, but it seems it's got much further down to go.
[+] [-] CopyrightTroll|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mbenjaminsmith|15 years ago|reply
On a side note: I recently made the difficult decision of creating a library from scratch since the only one available was GPL. I guess that was the correct decision after all?
[+] [-] schrototo|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kranner|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzs|15 years ago|reply
One of GPL's requirements is that when you distribute GPLed code, you can not impose any additional terms on the recipient.
When a user obtains an app from the App Store, Apple makes a copy of the app and that is downloaded to the user. This means that Apple needs permission of the copyright owner to do this. For most apps, there is no problem, because the developer owns the copyright, and grants Apple permission to make and distribute copies.
When the developer has included GPL code that he does not own, and whose owner has not granted an exception for Apple, Apple has to obey GPL. That means imposing no terms beyond GPL on the recipient.
Unfortunately, Apple does impose terms on the user--you aren't allowed to use the App Store unless you agree to Apple's terms, which include limits on what you can do with the downloaded software.
[+] [-] kurtsiegfried|15 years ago|reply
This is the original post by Rémi Denis-Courmont, on the VLC developers mailing list pertaining to the takedown notice filed at the end of October. In it he links to another FSF post about incompatibilities between the App Store licensing terms, and the GPL, as well as his rational for filing the takedown notice
EDIT: Sorry Callahad for the dupe, you typed faster than I did.
[+] [-] sanxiyn|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] callahad|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sanxiyn|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sanxiyn|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] st3fan|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevinchen|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sdizdar|15 years ago|reply
Am I wrong here?
[+] [-] adaml_623|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikecane|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryan-allen|15 years ago|reply
It's such a shame... This to me has a similar kind of feel to patent trolling.
[+] [-] jbk|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adulau|15 years ago|reply
http://www.goodiff.org/changeset/597/apple/www.apple.com/leg...
[+] [-] yason|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mike-cardwell|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] code_duck|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jbk|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drivebyacct2|15 years ago|reply
Also, is it terribly selfish of me to find this enjoyable partly because of the App Store apologists and partly because it means there will be more focus on VLC for Android?
[+] [-] melito|15 years ago|reply
So no. This does not mean there will be more focus on VLC for Android.
If anything I think this is a bad thing for all software currently using the GPL.
I understand the claim and ultimately it's the author's decision, but I feel that using the GPL in this fashion is ironic at best and hypocritical at worst.
[+] [-] jbk|15 years ago|reply
No, because VLC for iOS was done by the Mac guys of VLC, while the Android port is done by Linux developers.
However, iOS and Android share a lot of code, and some work on iOS will be reusable on Android, especially the OpenGL ES 2 video output.