This is as it should be. You cannot create an ecosystem that is diametrically opposed to every principle the FSF has ever stood for, and then expect to be able to distribute GPL licensed code from it. I'm actually glad to see the GPL working.
Exactly. I contribute code to GPL-licensed projects, and I don't want the users of my code to be unable to fix it; it's simply not fair to distribute software that the end-users are not allowed to tweak and improve. When you distribute software on the App Store, the users get the changes I made, but I never get the chance to get changes that they would have made. Hence, a license that prohibits this unfairness is necessary, and the GPL fits the bill.
Don't get me wrong, I am fine with software that is BSD- or MIT- licensed. But I think for the best culture of contribution and sharing, you need to clearly set your expectations in the form of a license, and the GPL does exactly that.
If Apple wants the world of GPL'd code to be available on their devices, the solution is simple -- allow side-loading.
You know, I don't think that Apple deliberately sat down and decided to create an anti-FSF platform.
I think they sat down and tried to create a platform that would be commercially viable, but wouldn't descend into anarchy, e.g. would stay 'family friendly'. In order to ensure that, they need to maintain control. But hey, a bunch of control freaks picked a system that would maximise their control... news at 11 everyone.
Funnily enough, the GPL is also a walled garden environment. You can tell that they'd really prefer to have a system where everything (in their system) was GPLed. Please note the distinction here, they're not saying that everyone should or has to GPL their software, they're saying that if you bring your toys to their sandpit, you have to share... and they don't care what happens in that other sandpit, everyone else can go hang. If you don't like it, go play in the other sandpit where no one shares.
Therefore I am of the opinion that it is perilously close to hypocrisy for GPL fans to complain about walled gardens. The old saying about people who live in glass houses applies here I think.
This is a good (but painful) thing. The GPL is designed to counteract the sort distribution lockdown that the App Store represents, and it's doing its job here. The GPL is diametrically opposed to the App Store ecosystem (buy once, reuse/modify never), and it's a good thing that it's being enforced, even if it does mean the loss of quality software on the iOS platform.
This really does underscore, however, how important it is to license your code carefully. If you want to make it completely free (as in, "I don't care what you do with it" free), use BSD. If you want to make sure that your software is never used restrictively and that it continually promotes the free software ethos, then GPL is a great tool.
> If you want to make it completely free (as in, "I don't care what you do with it" free), use BSD
Sadly, it's also free as "please, BigNastyCorp, feel free to take away any freedoms from your users who depend on my work". While BSD may be "more free" according to some, it's the freedoms of the users we are (or should be) protecting. For those, *GPL is the license of choice.
I'm not entirely convinced about this, so perhaps someone can help me out. If I contribute to a BSD-licensed project but don't assign copyright, wouldn't that give me the right to ask Apple to remove the project from their store on copyright grounds, assuming somebody submitted it there? What does the GPL have to do with it, in general? (I realise the specifics of this case are slightly different.)
It's not about advancing the GNU project as much as advancing the values expressed in the GPL: allowing your software to be built on by those who agree to return the favor. There's nothing wrong with reciprocity.
I drew exactly the opposite conclusion. Go with BSD if you want Apple to steal your code and contribute back nothing to the community (how much have they given back to Free/NetBSD?).
If you really want to get on your high horse about companies not contributing back to open source, you need to stop ignoring the elephant in the room (Google) and you need a bigger horse.
But, this is just another prime example of the bizarre logic of Apple bashing. Never mind that Apple does more to give back to open source community than most, lets ignore the facts and bash Apple. Let me give you some more:
Greenpeace bashing Apple even though Apple was actually doing more to reduce environmental impact than any of the beige box companies. Greenpeace's logic was that even though the beige box companies were worse, they had promised to at some distant future unspecified point in time take unspecified steps to at that point be better than what Apple was today... Apple of course said no such thing about their future plans... so Greenpeace was puffing on the vaporware announcement, and bashing the company that was actually taking real steps. Incredible.
Adobe bashing Apple for not putting flash onto their phone - when no other smart phone in the world ran flash... and it would be 3 years before a serious full implementation would come out from a competitor (and lo and behold it was an awful user experience and it killed battery life).
---
Frankly, as a developer there are an absolute truckload of things to complain about Apple that get ignored, but the ones people pick to focus on are just bizarre.
This is much more about a single VLC developer spitefully griefing the others than the GPL.
The only reason he has grounds to send C&D letters to Apple is because he holds copyright over his contributions to VLC. The other developers don't give a shit that the Apple-distributed binaries aren't redistributable by default, given that the iOS port is still fully open source and is trivially redistributable/compilable on jailbroken devices.
I have trouble believing an entire project is using the GPL yet almost nobody cares whether most users are getting stuck with unmodifiable binaries. And what about reused libraries? I don't believe I have any code in VLC, but if I did I'd be livid if they decided it'd be okay to contribute it to Apple's dystopian nightmare against my express wishes.
I agree that it sounds more like one developer trying to pee in the porridge pot than a genuine licence problem.
For all the people screaming about how GPL forces X, Y and Z, there is a really simple solution that has been tried and proven to work before:
just DUAL LICENCE
A dual licence allows you to work inside the GPL walled garden, and also outside of it in the real world. You can literally have the best of both worlds. It preserves maximum freedoms for the users.
What it doesn't do is advance the agenda of the GPL, which is to create a self contained and self sufficient ecosystem consisting solely of the GPL. So when dual licencing you can say, well, we're not at that utopian programmer's paradise yet, so it doesn't matter, but the less commitment people have to a strong GPL, the longer it will take to reach that ideal world.
To me this seems like a failure of the simplicity of the GPL, but with no easy fix. Apple doesn't want to restrict the program to anyone, they just want to have their distribution process restrictive. If there was a way to proxy the supply of the restriction-free binary and/or source code of the app there wouldn't be a problem. The app submitter or VLC devs or another interested party would step up to host.
It's sad how many developers use /L?GPLv[23]/ licensing for their software without actually understanding what those licenses are about. Then crying out loud about "FSF destroying communities" and insisting on "oh, just don't tell anyone about GPL incompatibilities here, because distribution is more important."
If they consider an ability to ship the software more important than users' freedoms (in GPL sense), they should've been using appropriate license. I'm not saying GPL is a good or bad choice, but talking about being responsible in (licensing) decisions and statements.
It depends on which license the code is in already and what each contributor allows.
If you own the copyright, completely, you can license under virtually any license, ever, at any time. Period.
But if you have an open-source project with tons of contributors, well, they licensed their work under the terms of a specific license. And in the case of the GPL, it explicitly means that their contributions CANNOT be redistributed under ANY terms that conflict with the “freedoms” guaranteed to end users, etc., by the GPL. However, you can at any time release a BSD-licensed work under the GPL. This is part of why the GPL is sometimes called “viral” — once it touches you, it’s hard/impossible to escape, see?
So what would have to happen would be for everyone who ever contributed to VLC to say, “Okay, I’m chill with BSD,” and the code contributed by anyone who refused to do so would need re-written e.g. in a cleanroom to avoid copyright infringement. :-/
I believe that in order to do that, they would need to aggregate the copyright or get permission to change the license from each contributor. From what I understand, most projects that have dual-licensed have required contributor assignment of copyright from early on.
In theory, yes. However you need to track down every contributor and get them to agree to the new licence. It's a logistically hard thing and might not even succeed.
No, it's just programmer politics from some douchebag with an axe to grind.
Frankly, the entire open source community should pat itself on the back that this sort of thing doesn't happen more often. People being what they are, this is a genuine Christmas miracle.
What he should do, is pull a Theo and go off and fork the project, instead of trying to ruin it for everyone else.
I've made a couple of video clips and published them under cc-by.
Say someone (A) wanted to use my clip in a bigger project, but couldn't give me attribution because someone else higher up in the bigger project (B) insists on not crediting any outsiders.
Would it be wrong of me in this hypothetical to demand that I either be attributed or they don't get to use my clip? Should I even feel guilty?
Bill, like anyone's going to want to use my clips of ducks quacking or sword waving.
[+] [-] spiffworks|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrockway|15 years ago|reply
Don't get me wrong, I am fine with software that is BSD- or MIT- licensed. But I think for the best culture of contribution and sharing, you need to clearly set your expectations in the form of a license, and the GPL does exactly that.
If Apple wants the world of GPL'd code to be available on their devices, the solution is simple -- allow side-loading.
[+] [-] Stormbringer|15 years ago|reply
I think they sat down and tried to create a platform that would be commercially viable, but wouldn't descend into anarchy, e.g. would stay 'family friendly'. In order to ensure that, they need to maintain control. But hey, a bunch of control freaks picked a system that would maximise their control... news at 11 everyone.
Funnily enough, the GPL is also a walled garden environment. You can tell that they'd really prefer to have a system where everything (in their system) was GPLed. Please note the distinction here, they're not saying that everyone should or has to GPL their software, they're saying that if you bring your toys to their sandpit, you have to share... and they don't care what happens in that other sandpit, everyone else can go hang. If you don't like it, go play in the other sandpit where no one shares.
Therefore I am of the opinion that it is perilously close to hypocrisy for GPL fans to complain about walled gardens. The old saying about people who live in glass houses applies here I think.
[+] [-] cheald|15 years ago|reply
This really does underscore, however, how important it is to license your code carefully. If you want to make it completely free (as in, "I don't care what you do with it" free), use BSD. If you want to make sure that your software is never used restrictively and that it continually promotes the free software ethos, then GPL is a great tool.
[+] [-] rbanffy|15 years ago|reply
Sadly, it's also free as "please, BigNastyCorp, feel free to take away any freedoms from your users who depend on my work". While BSD may be "more free" according to some, it's the freedoms of the users we are (or should be) protecting. For those, *GPL is the license of choice.
[+] [-] wzdd|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alanh|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcantelon|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sedachv|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbanffy|15 years ago|reply
Great. This way you take away freedoms from the users.
> unless you really do care about the GNU project more than shipping code & solutions.
No. You chose GPL when you really care about the freedoms your users deserve.
[+] [-] Stormbringer|15 years ago|reply
But, this is just another prime example of the bizarre logic of Apple bashing. Never mind that Apple does more to give back to open source community than most, lets ignore the facts and bash Apple. Let me give you some more:
Greenpeace bashing Apple even though Apple was actually doing more to reduce environmental impact than any of the beige box companies. Greenpeace's logic was that even though the beige box companies were worse, they had promised to at some distant future unspecified point in time take unspecified steps to at that point be better than what Apple was today... Apple of course said no such thing about their future plans... so Greenpeace was puffing on the vaporware announcement, and bashing the company that was actually taking real steps. Incredible.
Adobe bashing Apple for not putting flash onto their phone - when no other smart phone in the world ran flash... and it would be 3 years before a serious full implementation would come out from a competitor (and lo and behold it was an awful user experience and it killed battery life).
---
Frankly, as a developer there are an absolute truckload of things to complain about Apple that get ignored, but the ones people pick to focus on are just bizarre.
[+] [-] blasdel|15 years ago|reply
The only reason he has grounds to send C&D letters to Apple is because he holds copyright over his contributions to VLC. The other developers don't give a shit that the Apple-distributed binaries aren't redistributable by default, given that the iOS port is still fully open source and is trivially redistributable/compilable on jailbroken devices.
[+] [-] prodigal_erik|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Stormbringer|15 years ago|reply
For all the people screaming about how GPL forces X, Y and Z, there is a really simple solution that has been tried and proven to work before:
just DUAL LICENCE
A dual licence allows you to work inside the GPL walled garden, and also outside of it in the real world. You can literally have the best of both worlds. It preserves maximum freedoms for the users.
What it doesn't do is advance the agenda of the GPL, which is to create a self contained and self sufficient ecosystem consisting solely of the GPL. So when dual licencing you can say, well, we're not at that utopian programmer's paradise yet, so it doesn't matter, but the less commitment people have to a strong GPL, the longer it will take to reach that ideal world.
[+] [-] Dylan16807|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pornel|15 years ago|reply
Whether you need those things might be debatable, but Apple doesn't give you freedom to have them, and adds DRM to prevent you from modifying the app.
[+] [-] drdaeman|15 years ago|reply
If they consider an ability to ship the software more important than users' freedoms (in GPL sense), they should've been using appropriate license. I'm not saying GPL is a good or bad choice, but talking about being responsible in (licensing) decisions and statements.
[+] [-] steauengeglase|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alanh|15 years ago|reply
If you own the copyright, completely, you can license under virtually any license, ever, at any time. Period.
But if you have an open-source project with tons of contributors, well, they licensed their work under the terms of a specific license. And in the case of the GPL, it explicitly means that their contributions CANNOT be redistributed under ANY terms that conflict with the “freedoms” guaranteed to end users, etc., by the GPL. However, you can at any time release a BSD-licensed work under the GPL. This is part of why the GPL is sometimes called “viral” — once it touches you, it’s hard/impossible to escape, see?
So what would have to happen would be for everyone who ever contributed to VLC to say, “Okay, I’m chill with BSD,” and the code contributed by anyone who refused to do so would need re-written e.g. in a cleanroom to avoid copyright infringement. :-/
[+] [-] jarin|15 years ago|reply
Edit: Here's a good overview on it http://opensource.com/law/10/9/copyright-aggregation
[+] [-] rmc|15 years ago|reply
In theory, yes. However you need to track down every contributor and get them to agree to the new licence. It's a logistically hard thing and might not even succeed.
[+] [-] pwpwp|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Stormbringer|15 years ago|reply
Frankly, the entire open source community should pat itself on the back that this sort of thing doesn't happen more often. People being what they are, this is a genuine Christmas miracle.
What he should do, is pull a Theo and go off and fork the project, instead of trying to ruin it for everyone else.
[+] [-] billpg|15 years ago|reply
Say someone (A) wanted to use my clip in a bigger project, but couldn't give me attribution because someone else higher up in the bigger project (B) insists on not crediting any outsiders.
Would it be wrong of me in this hypothetical to demand that I either be attributed or they don't get to use my clip? Should I even feel guilty?
Bill, like anyone's going to want to use my clips of ducks quacking or sword waving.