FSF vs App Store

[earthpigg]

The final conclusion of this post to vlc-devel, regarding the presence of a VLC-based product that is offered for $0.00 in the iPad App Store...

http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-November/077486.html


To summarize:

* The App Store terms apply to GPLed software in the App Store.

* Those terms force strict Usage Rules on customers that prohibit many
activities that are allowed under the GPL.

* Those restrictions are not allowed under GPLv2 section 6.

Again, if any of you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

Best regards,

--
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation


The developer of this GPL and VLC-based iPad App is very angry (http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-November/077504.html).

The full discussion can be accessed here (http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-November/thread.html#77486).


So, there ya have it folks. Why no GPL'd software in the App Store?

It isn't because of Apple. They have approved GPL'd Apps in the past.

The Free Software Foundation's Compliance Engineers are the ones stomping out GPL'd Apps as they pop up.

EDIT: here's another summary of events (http://www.google.com/buzz/tophfisher/fLbZzhAuLrW/las-vlcVLC-Dev-Rips-the-FSF-a-New-One-mailman).

[kaldor]

Hide the GPL so nobody on OS X will discover Free software!

[earthpigg]

Ya know, it just occured to me:

Instead of puting GPL'd software in the App Store, what if I (or someone else) submitted an App that does nothing more than install the GPL'd software?

So instead of having "VLC for iPad" or "MobileVLC" in the App Store, one could put the BSD licensed "MobileVLC Installer," which does exactly what it sounds like it does.

Think Apple would approve it?
Think any FSF Compliance Engineers would get on anyones case over that?

[JDShu]

hehe maybe the OSI can fund some lawyers to investigate.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

The worst of it: someone's donation to the FSF funded this debacle.
Instead of promoting the ideals and attitudes of free software, they created hostility and wasted a bunch of peoples' time.

Not that I think they're without a point, but these sorts of things shouldn't be dealt with in such a rigid and emotionless way.

[Merk42]

Free Software Foundation
"You should be free to use your software however you want...



...as long as it complies with what we say"

[zekopeko]

Your title is misleading. The FSF doesn't have anything to do with the VLC issue here.

To clarify I'm going to summarize the events so far.

Some time ago a company named Applidium talked with VideoLan oragnization, a non-profit which supports VLC development, if they can port VLC to the iPhone. VideoLan Foundation/Organization gave them the approval to do so, allowing them to use the VLC name.
Applidium completes the port and releases it to the AppStore mid September. Fast forward to late October.

Rémi Denis-Courmont, a VLC developer and the owner of a portion of VLC's copyright requests removal of the VLC app from the AppStore. He also releases a "blog post" on planet.videolan.org which very much resembles an official press release by the VideoLan organization. In essence Remi tries to sell his take down notice as something that the VLC team agreed. The post gets taken down and Remi bitches a little about it.

That post is used by the FSF (Brett Smith that is) to give it their usual "we fight for freedom; Apple is evil" spin in the form of a blog post, while completely disregarding the VLC community.

Some time later after a slight flame war erupted on the vlc-devel list, Brett Smith of the FSF posts to the list, after being asked so by one of the participants (salsaman).


The final conclusion of this post to vlc-devel, regarding the presence of a VLC-based product that is offered for $0.00 in the iPad App Store...

http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-November/077486.html


This isn't the final conclusion. This is an opinion from a 3rd party that has nothing to do with VLC. Of importance is the fact that Brett Smith, despite his title of "Licensing Compliance Engineer" isn't a lawyer but a computer science major.



The developer of this GPL and VLC-based iPad App is very angry (http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-November/077504.html).

He isn't the developer of VLC for iPhone/Pad (but is for the regular VLC). He is the chairman of the non-profit VideoLan organization. He is responding to Brett Smith's profiteering on the whole issue. That's why he talks about him destroying communities.


The full discussion can be accessed here (http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-November/thread.html#77486).

So, there ya have it folks. Why no GPL'd software in the App Store?

It isn't because of Apple. They have approved GPL'd Apps in the past.

The Free Software Foundation's Compliance Engineers are the ones stomping out GPL'd Apps as they pop up.

The GPL/Appstore issue here has nothing to do with the FSF. There are two issues here. One is the potential GPL/Appstore issue. The other is how Rémi Denis-Courmont went behind the back of the rest of the VLC team and how the FSF used that for their political agenda.

Of importance is the fact that the FSF can't do anything about VLC being in the AppStore since they don't own the copyright. It's Rémi Denis-Courmont that is doing the stomping in this particular case. The FSF is simply profiteering from the situation. You can tell how bad it is since Remi (the guy that started this whole debate) also isn't happy about it

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Your title is misleading. The FSF doesn't have anything to do with the VLC issue here.

[Excellent, enlightening explanation of events]

You, sir, are excellent.

[zekopeko]

You, sir, are excellent.

Thanks!

Let me go slightly off topic and say that I enjoy reading your insights. IIRC you wrote the insightful "Gnome can't decide if they are a monolithic OS or a bazaar of components" comment on Jono Bacon's blog .

[Dr. C]

The issue here is copyright infringement or software piracy plain and simple. If one releases software code under the GPL, the GPL v2 has a provision as follows (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html):

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
Distribution through the Apple store violates the above provision of the GPL because Apple places additional restrictions on the distribution and use of the software. That places all the parties involved in the software distribution liable for copyright infringement, including both Apple and the VideoLan Foundation. The role of the FSF here is simply that of an expert witness since they drafted the GPL, and quite frankly they are telling it like it is, and doing their job very well. If Apple is allowed to get away with this, what is to stop Microsoft from incorporating the Linux kernel in the next version of Windows, for example?

If the copyright owner decides to play hardball and take the matter to court, both Apple and the VideoLan Foundation could be liable for serious financial damages. Let us not forget the United States have some very severe damages for copyright infringement in their laws.

[red_Marvin]

Free Software Foundation
"You should be free to use your software however you want...



...as long as it complies with what we say"

The GPL restricts modification, copying and redistribution. It does not restrict use of the program.

[forrestcupp]

It's kind of dumb to create an iOS app for the App Store and release it under the GPL, anyway.

[Dr. C]

The GPL restricts modification, copying and redistribution. It does not restrict use of the program.

The GPL is primarily designed to restrict the placing of restrictions. Take away the freedoms from GPL software and you become a software pirate. That is the essence of copyleft.

[zekopeko]

The issue here is copyright infringement or software piracy plain and simple. If one releases software code under the GPL, the GPL v2 has a provision as follows (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html):

That provision wasn't even discussed. IIRC the problematic one is #6.


Distribution through the Apple store violates the above provision of the GPL because Apple places additional restrictions on the distribution and use of the software. That places all the parties involved in the software distribution liable for copyright infringement, including both Apple and the VideoLan Foundation.

VideoLan foundation had not hand in distributing the software. A third party developer, Applidium, did the porting and submission to the AppStore

I bet Apple's AppStore Terms of Service (or what ever they are called) most likely have a provision where it puts the blame solely (as legally possible) on the shoulders of the submitter in cases of copyright infringement. Apple would most likely also be covered with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Safe Harbor provisions if they infringed.

This is strengthened by simply looking at the relevant iTunes/AppStore page (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/vlc-media-player/id390885556?mt=8). Notice the total lack of any mention of GPL. The only copyright notice states: "© 1996-2010 The VideoLAN team".


The role of the FSF here is simply that of an expert witness since they drafted the GPL, and quite frankly they are telling it like it is, and doing their job very well.

The only thing they did here was to abuse the whole situation to push their political agenda and demonize Apple, a company they have a beef for some time now.

VLC developers are the only ones relevant here. If they give a green light to keep the app in store there is nothing that FSF can do no matter how much they think it's a violation.


If Apple is allowed to get away with this, what is to stop Microsoft from incorporating the Linux kernel in the next version of Windows, for example?

That is a slippery slope fallacy if I ever saw one.


If the copyright owner decides to play hardball and take the matter to court, both Apple and the VideoLan Foundation could be liable for serious financial damages. Let us not forget the United States have some very severe damages for copyright infringement in their laws.

As stated above, VideoLan Foundation did no infringe anything and Apple unknowingly and unintentionally released VLC in the AppStore plus they could probably get away via DMCA's Safe Harbor provisions.

The copyright holder has a beef with Applidium not Apple or VideoLan foundation.

Apple is here being demonoized for FSF's political agenda not because of some threat they present to FOSS.

[czr114]

The entire point of an app store is to enable a commercial vendor to take over the distribution channel.

Free software can be downloaded by anyone from a variety of diverse sources. App stores are the exact opposite of that - they restrict downloading to registered accounts as they begin herding the user base towards unfree software.

Commandeering free software as bait to herd users into a unified, commercialized distribution point goes against what free software is about.

If people want to make money from free software, they should be finding ways to offer time/labor helping others make use of it, not clicking copy to build up brand equity in a monopoly-trending distribution channel.

Imagine how we all would feel if payment gateways creeped into Synaptic.

It may not violate the letter of various free software licenses, but it violates the spirit.

[zekopeko]

The GPL is primarily designed to restrict the placing of restrictions. Take away the freedoms from GPL software and you become a software pirate. That is the essence of copyleft.

No, you become a software "pirate" by committing intentional copyright infringement.

[red_Marvin]

The GPL is primarily designed to restrict the placing of restrictions. Take away the freedoms from GPL software and you become a software pirate. That is the essence of copyleft.
That is similar to what I meant to say;
The GPL restricts redistribution as in that the redistributor may not place additional restrictions on the program.

[zekopeko]

The entire point of an app store is to enable a commercial vendor to take over the distribution channel.

Free software can be downloaded by anyone from a variety of diverse sources. App stores are the exact opposite of that - they restrict downloading to registered accounts as they begin herding the user base towards unfree software.

Commandeering free software as bait to herd users into a unified, commercialized distribution point goes against what free software is about.

If people want to make money from free software, they should be finding ways to offer time/labor helping others make use of it, not clicking copy to build up brand equity in a monopoly-trending distribution channel.

Imagine how we all would feel if payment gateways creeped into Synaptic.

It may not violate the letter of various free software licenses, but it violates the spirit.

You are basing your whole statement on the notion that Apple did something wrong here. They didn't "appropriate" FOSS into their AppStore, the app was submitted by a 3rd party that has nothing to do with Apple beyond making applications for iOS.

Another point you miss here is that commercializing GPL software is perfectly acceptable. Anybody can sell GPL software. They just have to release the code (to simplify it).

[v1ad]

to me, the problem seems to lay with Apples over obsessive DRM obsession.

if Apple won't change their policy (imo) open source developers shouldn't develop for it.

since they did, you can say "Lesson learned the hard way"

[Dr. C]

That provision wasn't even discussed. IIRC the problematic one is #6.



VideoLan foundation had not hand in distributing the software. A third party developer, Applidium, did the porting and submission to the AppStore

I bet Apple's AppStore Terms of Service (or what ever they are called) most likely have a provision where it puts the blame solely (as legally possible) on the shoulders of the submitter in cases of copyright infringement. Apple would most likely also be covered with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Safe Harbor provisions if they infringed.

This is strengthened by simply looking at the relevant iTunes/AppStore page. Notice the total lack of any mention of GPL. The only copyright notice states: "© 1996-2010 The VideoLAN team".



The only thing they did here was to abuse the whole situation to push their political agenda and demonize Apple, a company they have a beef for some time now.

VLC developers are the only ones relevant here. If they give a green light to keep the app in store there is nothing that FSF can do no matter how much they think it's a violation.



That is a slippery slope fallacy if I ever saw one.



As stated above, VideoLan Foundation did no infringe anything and Apple unknowingly and unintentionally released VLC in the AppStore plus they could probably get away via DMCA's Safe Harbor provisions.

The copyright holder has a beef with Applidium not Apple or VideoLan foundation.

Apple is here being demonoized for FSF's political agenda not because of some threat they present to FOSS.

Apple's terms of service will very likely makes the submitter liable to Apple for copyright infringement, but that does not absolve Apple from liability to third parties who did not agree to the terms of service. If the copyright holder had agreed to Apple's terms of service then there would not be an issue, but he has not. Now guess who has the deeper pockets to pay damages?

The DMCA safe harbor provisions are very tricky in this case because Apple approves each application before it gets listed on the Apple store. It is more like a store owner that sells pirated software and then claims it is the distributor's fault to avoid liability to the copyright holders. What Apple has in this case is after all called a store.

Here is a link to the DMCA safe harbor provisions (http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise33.html). There is a very slippery slope here not only for FLOSS but also for propriety software companies like Microsoft if store owners are absolved from liability for selling pirated software.

[forrestcupp]

VLC developers are the only ones relevant here. If they give a green light to keep the app in store there is nothing that FSF can do no matter how much they think it's a violation.


This is not true. If the VLC developers choose to continue releasing their software under the GPL license, then they are bound to that license until they legally choose to change their license. The FSF's interest here is that they want their license to be enforced so that it doesn't become irrelevant and appear to be weak. If the VLC team doesn't want to follow the rules of the GPL, they don't have any business releasing their software under that license.

I don't have a lot of affection for the FSF, and I think they whine a lot, but I do see their relevance here. (I'm definitely not siding with them over Apple, though)

[Quadunit404]

to me, the problem seems to lay with Apples over obsessive DRM obsession. The funny part about their DRM obsession is that they like to pretend they hate DRM.

[earthpigg]

to me, the problem seems to lay with Apples over obsessive DRM obsession.

if Apple won't change their policy (imo) open source developers shouldn't develop for it.

since they did, you can say "Lesson learned the hard way"

There is nothing about the App Store or Apple that is unfriendly towards Open Source.

The GNU GPL, specifically, is unfriendly towards the App Store's terms of service. BSD, MIT, etc, licenses all seem to be A-OK.

Nothing about Apple is unique here. The only thing that is nearly unique is the GPL.

[czr114]

You are basing your whole statement on the notion that Apple did something wrong here. They didn't "appropriate" FOSS into their AppStore, the app was submitted by a 3rd party that has nothing to do with Apple beyond making applications for iOS.

I never said Apple did it firsthand. Apple runs that app store. They benefit from increased usage, increased lock-in, and increased brand equity.

If free software makes it into that channel, it benefits a purveyor of closed-source commercialized software operating a restrictive distribution channel.

It doesn't matter how it got there. From the perspective of those devs who believe in free software ideals, it shouldn't be there. At the end of the day, community work product shouldn't be enticing users to proprietary channels, especially those run by heavy-handed gatekeepers.

I'm not a lawyer, but if the GPL isn't restricting building up locked down software stores on the back of community work, then we probably need a GPL4 to address that for future work.

Central to the free software movement is the idea that it shouldn't be working against its own goals by helping others build up restrictions and walled gardens.



Another point you miss here is that commercializing GPL software is perfectly acceptable. Anybody can sell GPL software. They just have to release the code (to simplify it).

The spirit of the free software movement is fine with commercializing the support and labor which goes into helping people get the most out of a free software project.

The concept of a heavily restricted app store goes against everything free software is about.

Apple-style app stores, on restrictive channels, on locked down operating systems are a newly emergent phenomenon. They weren't anticipated ten years ago. Why should the free software movement, in today's world, be feeding that?

Between Apple, Microsoft, Google, and the various lobbyists working away, don't be surprised if, in ten years, freedom to tinker only happens on a fully free OS on fully free hardware.

We're seeing a proliferation of channels, platforms, and devices heavily restricted, over commercialized, and run by heavy handed gatekeepers. Why should they be cherry picking the best the FOSS community has to offer, when their software lock-in model is taking away the freedom to tinker, and the freedom to run software not rubber stamped by a corporate bureaucrat?

Even the worst sins of Microsoft never stopped us from loading free software onto a Windows box. The new paradigm in OS/device lockdown may be changing all that. Apple is leading that charge.

[Dr. C]

There is nothing about the App Store or Apple that is unfriendly towards Open Source.

The GNU GPL, specifically, is unfriendly towards the App Store's terms of service. BSD, MIT, etc, licenses all seem to be A-OK.

Nothing about Apple is unique here. The only thing that is nearly unique is the GPL.

The Apple store is the enemy of FLOSS, because all the software sold or distributed in the Apple store cannot be FLOSS. Sure one can distribute software that was originally FLOSS under a BSD or MIT in the Apple store just as Microsoft can incorporate BSD or MIT software in Windows, but that does not make Microsoft Windows FLOSS. Furthermore the GPL and the concept of copyleft has been around long before Apple came up with is store and related terms of service.

It is Apple who fired the first shot in its war on FLOSS with its terms of service and not the other way around.

[czr114]

There is nothing about the App Store or Apple that is unfriendly towards Open Source.

The GNU GPL, specifically, is unfriendly towards the App Store's terms of service. BSD, MIT, etc, licenses all seem to be A-OK.

Nothing about Apple is unique here. The only thing that is nearly unique is the GPL.
The entire purpose of the app store is to grant a single, central, commercial entity control over software and its distribution.

The terms of service is no good, and the FOSS community shouldn't be feeding it.

It's no secret that Apple, Google, and Microsoft all have their eye on a future in which hardware ties in tightly with software, with applications coming over official, commercialized channels. Many devices are being locked down to reject unsigned software.

Want to provide software to users of certain Apple products? You only get to if Apple says you can - the will of the device's owner is irrelevant.

That's coming to other platforms, and FOSS volunteers shouldn't be making it any easier. It completely goes against the spirit of openness.

It seems that the TPM brouhaha from a few years back might have been a dry run for what's coming around now.

If you support FOSS, you can't support a future in which a user has to find renegade hardware to install software not meeting the approval of, and receiving a digital signature from, some central commercial authority.

It'll start with "protecting users from viruses and bugs", and from there it will spread to keeping out community software from which the channel operator can't take a cut of the revenue from an app store. Don't think for a minute that large interests don't want a future in which owning a device and using software requires a registered account and a major credit card.

[zekopeko]

Apple's terms of service will very likely makes the submitter liable to Apple for copyright infringement, but that does not absolve Apple from liability to third parties who did not agree to the terms of service. If the copyright holder had agreed to Apple's terms of service then there would not be an issue, but he has not. Now guess who has the deeper pockets to pay damages?

The DMCA safe harbor provisions are very tricky in this case because Apple approves each application before it gets listed on the Apple store. It is more like a store owner that sells pirated software and then claims it is the distributor's fault to avoid liability to the copyright holders. What Apple has in this case is after all called a store.

Thankfully Apple has excellent lawyers. I doubt there will be any talk of damages at all. Demanding damages from Apple would pretty much show that the VLC developer that started all of this is simply a sleazy gold digger.


Here is a link to the DMCA safe harbor provisions (http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise33.html). There is a very slippery slope here not only for FLOSS but also for propriety software companies like Microsoft if store owners are absolved from liability for selling pirated software.

You are oversimplifying. Would you be held responsible if you bought or received, in good faith, a stolen item? There are plenty of nuances here.

[zekopeko]

This is not true. If the VLC developers choose to continue releasing their software under the GPL license, then they are bound to that license until they legally choose to change their license. The FSF's interest here is that they want their license to be enforced so that it doesn't become irrelevant and appear to be weak. If the VLC team doesn't want to follow the rules of the GPL, they don't have any business releasing their software under that license.

I don't have a lot of affection for the FSF, and I think they whine a lot, but I do see their relevance here. (I'm definitely not siding with them over Apple, though)

This is a matter of debate. What if they interpret the GPL differently? They say Apple isn't a distributor but simply "facilitates distribution". What then?

In any case if they say it is OK then they implicitly grant an exception to the licence.

[zekopeko]

The Apple store is the enemy of FLOSS, because all the software sold or distributed in the Apple store cannot be FLOSS. Sure one can distribute software that was originally FLOSS under a BSD or MIT in the Apple store just as Microsoft can incorporate BSD or MIT software in Windows, but that does not make Microsoft Windows FLOSS. Furthermore the GPL and the concept of copyleft has been around long before Apple came up with is store and related terms of service.

It is Apple who fired the first shot in its war on FLOSS with its terms of service and not the other way around.

Apple hasn't fired any shot at FOSS. There isn't any war over FOSS with Apple. That myth might be perpetuated by the free software activists but it simply isn't true.

Just because some company isn't fully FOSS does not mean they are against it.

[zekopeko]

I never said Apple did it firsthand. Apple runs that app store. They benefit from increased usage, increased lock-in, and increased brand equity.

If free software makes it into that channel, it benefits a purveyor of closed-source commercialized software operating a restrictive distribution channel.

It doesn't matter how it got there. From the perspective of those devs who believe in free software ideals, it shouldn't be there. At the end of the day, community work product shouldn't be enticing users to proprietary channels, especially those run by heavy-handed gatekeepers.

I'm not a lawyer, but if the GPL isn't restricting building up locked down software stores on the back of community work, then we probably need a GPL4 to address that for future work.

Central to the free software movement is the idea that it shouldn't be working against its own goals by helping others build up restrictions and walled gardens.

Then apparently there is no place for FOSS apps on future mobile app stores. At least of the GPL kind.


The spirit of the free software movement is fine with commercializing the support and labor which goes into helping people get the most out of a free software project.

The concept of a heavily restricted app store goes against everything free software is about.

Could you point to me those AppStore restrictions? Specifically.


Apple-style app stores, on restrictive channels, on locked down operating systems are a newly emergent phenomenon. They weren't anticipated ten years ago. Why should the free software movement, in today's world, be feeding that?

Sorry but that is simply incorrect. Gaming consoles of old already did that. So did mobile carriers of old with their locked-to-network phones with extremely limited access to the carriers network (by software). I don't see the FSF going around and pointing at Xbox or Nintendo as "enemies of your freedom".


Between Apple, Microsoft, Google, and the various lobbyists working away, don't be surprised if, in ten years, freedom to tinker only happens on a fully free OS on fully free hardware.

We're seeing a proliferation of channels, platforms, and devices heavily restricted, over commercialized, and run by heavy handed gatekeepers. Why should they be cherry picking the best the FOSS community has to offer, when their software lock-in model is taking away the freedom to tinker, and the freedom to run software not rubber stamped by a corporate bureaucrat?

Even the worst sins of Microsoft never stopped us from loading free software onto a Windows box. The new paradigm in OS/device lockdown may be changing all that. Apple is leading that charge.

The funniest part is that Apple actually made one of the greatest advances in consumer freedoms. Before 2007 it was unthinkable for mobile phones to have this amount of access trough the carriers network. 3 years ago nobody even thought about surfing the net via their cell phone.

Apple basically opened the flood gates.

[czr114]

Apple hasn't fired any shot at FOSS. There isn't any war over FOSS with Apple. That myth might be perpetuated by the free software activists but it simply isn't true.

Just because some company isn't fully FOSS does not mean they are against it.
What do you think the purpose of a tightly integrated app store on locked down hardware is?

Hint: it's not to let you run any software you want on the device you're supposed to own.

[Dr. C]

Thankfully Apple has excellent lawyers. I doubt there will be any talk of damages at all. Demanding damages from Apple would pretty much show that the VLC developer that started all of this is simply a sleazy gold digger.



You are oversimplifying. Would you be held responsible if you bought or received, in good faith, a stolen item? There are plenty of nuances here.

It is very hard to make a good faith case for Apple in the VLC case as the FSF made them well aware of the problem with the GNU GO case, It is more like knowingly receiving a stolen item and then selling it in a store.

The other thing to keep in mind here is that companies like Apple have lobbied very hard for the draconian copyright laws with sizable statutory damages in countries like the United States. So if the developer makes use of these very laws to extract a sizable settlement from Apple, I say all power to him, the more financial pain he can deliver to Apple the better. That will help deter corporations from lobbying for unjust laws.

It is important to keep in mind what Apple would do of the shoe was on the other foot, with lets say Mac OS X on non Apple hardware for example.

[czr114]

Could you point to me those AppStore restrictions? Specifically.

Apple is the gatekeeper on a growing share of devices.

If you want to run software of your choosing, you have to engage in device engineering of questionable legality.

If you want to produce software for others who supposedly own the device, you have to pay fees, sign legal documents, and meet with Apple's prior approval.

If they don't like you, you're banned. If they don't like your app, it will be censored. If you don't write Objective C, tough. If you compete with Apple's vision, you're blackballed.

The app store is the delivery channel for restricted usage.

The goal is to turn electronics the user is supposed to own into a strongly defined walled garden.

The next push is for the desktops. If that camel can get its nose in, it will.

The whole process is neither free nor open from beginning to end, even if it isn't specifically proscribed by a certain free software manifesto hailing from the days of software trading on floppies.




Sorry but that is simply incorrect. Gaming consoles of old already did that. So did mobile carriers of old with their locked-to-network phones with extremely limited access to the carriers network (by software). I don't see the FSF going around and pointing at Xbox or Nintendo as "enemies of your freedom".
Of course they already exist.

Those are not free platforms, but then again, neither is my toaster.

Forget about the form. The bottom line is that we're seeing a growing trend in fully-functional networked computers on which the owner of the device has severely restricted freedom to be anything other than a paying "consumer."

Those computers are, simply put, not free.

Why they are that way is irrelevant. The devices restrict software freedom, thus those wishing to build free software just might have an objection to how a multinational purveyor of closed systems uses and markets their product.




The funniest part is that Apple actually made one of the greatest advances in consumer freedoms. Before 2007 it was unthinkable for mobile phones to have this amount of access trough the carriers network. 3 years ago nobody even thought about surfing the net via their cell phone.

You can call it "consumer freedom", but the Apple model is really "freedom to consume."

The Apple model is the 21st century equivalent of cars coming in any color of your choice, so long as it's black. As long as Apple says the app is okay, and can take a cut, then it can be run. If Apple doesn't approve, then down the memory hole it goes.

Free software isn't about features. It wouldn't matter if the 5G iPhone could perform open heart surgery - free software wasn't created so that companies could commercialize it, seal it off, and not reciprocate the same freedom, or create a platform antithetical to the freedom to tinker.




Apple basically opened the flood gates.
Apple opened the flood gates for taking software as a service to full-blown computers as a service.

Given how restricted those products are, it's worth a serious debate whether people actually "own" them.

The iGizmos in question are more of a physical manifestation of a EULA than they are an owned electronic device.

Remember the whole TPM controversy?

[earthpigg]

I agree with just about every negative point brought up regarding Apple.

I do not like Apple, own none of their products, and do not intend to do so unless there is a drastic change in the way they do business.

That big-picture issue being stated, however, two wrongs do not make a right. I do not subscribe to the Fair Game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_%28Scientology%29) concept as being an ethical one.

[zekopeko]

What do you think the purpose of a tightly integrated app store on locked down hardware is?

Hint: it's not to let you run any software you want on the device you're supposed to own.

Still doesn't prove your assertion. They contribute to numerous FOSS projects. They even contributed to FSF's projects.

My original point is that free software activists are trying to present Apple as an active participant of this imaginary "war" which, from the available evidence, is simply untrue. At best they are indifferent, at least ideologically speaking.

[zekopeko]

Apple is ... <snip>

You make some good points that were already known. This thread isn't about them. It is about VLC and GPL restrictions.

The FSF shamelessly used a community to promote their political agenda. Apple was singled out even thought it is pretty obvious they had virtually no involvement in this case (at least from an ethical standpoint).

[Grenage]

My experience with licences is pretty non-existent, but after reading all of the above, I am assuming that:

The VLC developer who has partial rights is either justified, or a foolish man-child. Surely VideoLAN wouldn't give permission for Applidium to release an app with the VLC name unless they had the right to?

The FSF/GPL issue stems from Apple's overlapping licence; Apple's license enforces usage restrictions, and the GPL license forbids restrictions of this manner (correct me if wrong). This leads me to two possible scenarios:


A) The Appstore meets the MDCA safe harbour criteria as a transitory medium. The GPL is not truly violated as long as the source is still available through other means, in an unrestricted format (two paths, same destination - what's the problem?).


B) The GPL is violated by Apple's license; the GPL forbids restrictions, and Apple is enforcing them.


If my understanding is correct (it probably isn't), then I believe A is the logical scenario.

[zekopeko]

It is very hard to make a good faith case for Apple in the VLC case as the FSF made them well aware of the problem with the GNU GO case, It is more like knowingly receiving a stolen item and then selling it in a store.

It is not up to Apple to look for copyright infringement but to the owner of the copyright.
From the available evidence there is no way to conclude how Apple could have reasonably known about potential copyright infringement.

The apps are sent to Apple for review as binaries. The copyright notice only mentions "VideoLan Team". There isn't a single mention of GPL on the entire AppStore description.
I doubt Apple hires lawyers with computer science background to examine every single AppStore submission (which number in the thousands each week).

AppStore guidelines, from what I could find, are more about the user experience then about legality of the code.


The other thing to keep in mind here is that companies like Apple have lobbied very hard for the draconian copyright laws with sizable statutory damages in countries like the United States. So if the developer makes use of these very laws to extract a sizable settlement from Apple, I say all power to him, the more financial pain he can deliver to Apple the better. That will help deter corporations from lobbying for unjust laws.

Do remember that Free Software also heavily benefits from those same draconian copyright laws. Apple hasn't directly profited from the app since it was free. If anything they incurred a loss.


It is important to keep in mind what Apple would do of the shoe was on the other foot, with lets say Mac OS X on non Apple hardware for example.

They only lawsuit that I know of, concerning OSX on non-Apple hardware is the lawsuit against PyStar. The hackintosh scene is healthy and strong this days.

[saulgoode]

The FSF/GPL issue stems from Apple's overlapping licence; Apple's license enforces usage restrictions, and the GPL license forbids restrictions of this manner (correct me if wrong). This leads me to two possible scenarios:


A) The Appstore meets the MDCA safe harbour criteria as a transitory medium. The GPL is not truly violated as long as the source is still available through other means, in an unrestricted format (two paths, same destination - what's the problem?).
The DMCA's Safe Harbor provision only protects against legal and financial liability for the infringing activity, it does not serve as authorization for continuing that infringement.

Apple's non-compliance with the GPL is not about supplying source code -- it is about placing usage restrictions upon recipients of the GPLed software (whether binary or not). It is acceptable for the AppStore to direct recipients of GPLed software to an upstream (or other third-party) provider of the source code... as long as Apple has made arrangements with the source provider to honor that policy. This would be easy to implement, if it has not been already, as a conditional part of the AppStore submission process.

[Dr. C]

It is not up to Apple to look for copyright infringement but to the owner of the copyright.
From the available evidence there is no way to conclude how Apple could have reasonably known about potential copyright infringement.

The apps are sent to Apple for review as binaries. The copyright notice only mentions "VideoLan Team". There isn't a single mention of GPL on the entire AppStore description.
I doubt Apple hires lawyers with computer science background to examine every single AppStore submission (which number in the thousands each week).

AppStore guidelines, from what I could find, are more about the user experience then about legality of the code.

Since when are store owners not liable for counterfeit software on their shelves?


Do remember that Free Software also heavily benefits from those same draconian copyright laws. Apple hasn't directly profited from the app since it was free. If anything they incurred a loss.

It is commercial exploitation plain and simple. Apple benefits commercially from the presence of the application in their store. Especially a well known application such as VLC. I must fault the FSF for not pursuing legal action against Apple in the GNU GO case after the negotiations went nowhere. If this had occurred we would not have this problem with VLC.


They only lawsuit that I know of, concerning OSX on non-Apple hardware is the lawsuit against PyStar. The hackintosh scene is healthy and strong this days.

Apple did the right thing in suing PyStar, and the FSF and VLC developers need to do the same and sue Apple.

[czr114]

Still doesn't prove your assertion. They contribute to numerous FOSS projects. They even contributed to FSF's projects.
No, and a bit of tokenism doesn't prove yours, either.

Look at Apple's vision, their conferences, their presentations, and the devices they're producing.

Jobs has remarked numerous times on the alleged need for a heavy-handed gatekeeper. He sees his users as idiots who need the mighty visionaries at Apple to spoon-feed them Apple's definition of good technology.

Their approval process is intrusive and costs money. Devs exist at the pleasure of Apple. Apps have been censored, disallowed, and recalled at Apple's whim.

It's also no secret that Apple has become a Wall Street darling precisely because they're pumping out restricted platforms vertically integrated to app stores.

That's not a free platform. We should understand and align with devs who volunteer their time to produce great software to extend software freedom. We also shouldn't be surprised when devs feel slighted by a platform which assimilates free code but refuses to pass freedom along to its users.

Perhaps we need a new FOSS license term explicitly restricting commercial appropriation to any platform which users lack the right to run code of their choosing, or is in other ways constrained by commercial gatekeepers, code signing, or TPM-esque technologies.

Free software ideology originated in a time when a user's ownership and control of his hardware was without question, and activism need only liberate a user's control of the software on that system. That is no longer the case. Unfree computing devices are proliferating rapidly. The monied interests behind these are actively trying to establish lockout.

That's far worse than Microsoft bundling a browser or producing blackbox document formats.



My original point is that free software activists are trying to present Apple as an active participant of this imaginary "war" which, from the available evidence, is simply untrue. At best they are indifferent, at least ideologically speaking.
I never said otherwise, but that's irrelevant to the greater ideological questions of free software.

As far as promoting unfree software is concerned, it doesn't really matter whether Apple does the appropriating, or whether it's one of the many authorized third-party developers.

If it feeds that hydra, it's working against a future of software freedom.

[Grenage]

...it is about placing usage restrictions upon recipients of the GPLed software (whether binary or not)...

That's the main area I was unsure of. If the GPL covers both the binary and source, then there is an obvious violation; if not, and the source is available, there is a problem. A big problem, since that would truly rule out any GPL(3?) products from being marketed on a relatively closed system such as an iphone.

That makes it look like a classic case of cold and hard rules vs common sense, at least to me. Perhaps there should be a separate license for such a scenario.

[zekopeko]

My experience with licences is pretty non-existent, but after reading all of the above, I am assuming that:

The VLC developer who has partial rights is either justified, or a foolish man-child. Surely VideoLAN wouldn't give permission for Applidium to release an app with the VLC name unless they had the right to?

The VideoLAN project most likely holds the right to the VLC name but not to the code which is owned by specific contributors.

The problem is that the VLC developer did the nasty because he presented the case as being authorized by the VideoLAN project which it wasn't.

Contrast that with the Battle for Wesnoth GPL debate which was first talked on the mailing list of the project and is still up on the AppStore. So the VLC developer is legally justified in enforcing his right (if it is correct) but the way he behaved in doing so shows a surprising lack of team spirit and respect for other members of the project.

[zekopeko]

That's the main area I was unsure of. If the GPL covers both the binary and source, then there is an obvious violation; if not, and the source is available, there is a problem. A big problem, since that would truly rule out any GPL(3?) products from being marketed on a relatively closed system such as an iphone.

That makes it look like a classic case of cold and hard rules vs common sense, at least to me. Perhaps there should be a separate license for such a scenario.

VLC is GPLv2 so it's far less restrictive then v3.

[zekopeko]

Since when are store owners not liable for counterfeit software on their shelves?

Well since the store is digital the DMCA probably has something to say about that.


It is commercial exploitation plain and simple. Apple benefits commercially from the presence of the application in their store. Especially a well known application such as VLC. I must fault the FSF for not pursuing legal action against Apple in the GNU GO case after the negotiations went nowhere. If this had occurred we would not have this problem with VLC.

Lol. GPL is commercially exploited on a daily basis. You would have to prove Apple benefited from this significantly but that would be pretty hard considering the indirect nature of your assertion.

Negotiations in the GNU Go case did went somewhere. The software was removed. End of story.


Apple did the right thing in suing PyStar, and the FSF and VLC developers need to do the same and sue Apple.

At least we agree that the standards should at least be the same.

[Grenage]

VLC is GPLv2 so it's far less restrictive then v3.

Cheers for the correction, and elaboration in the previous post.

[czr114]

What happens if restrictions on software freedom should migrate to restrictions on human freedom?

The spat between unfree governments and BlackBerry should serve as a good template for what we're likely to see in the future.

Theoretically, Apple has the power to revoke applications and deny software capabilities upon government demand, applicable to every device within a country. They can do this because they maintain veto capability using code signing on a restricted platform. They know which devices are in which countries, because platform-integrated app stores are fundamentally unfree channels serving only identified customers.

Imagine an unfree government ordering Apple to remove, say, strong encryption from an entire nation. Unfree governments have done that before, and they'll do it again. Apple likely will comply, just as Google was perfectly happy to do evil when the Chinese government ordered it to. Apple didn't get to be worth 300 billion dollars by standing up for the little guy.

If that were to happen, all effective programs for free, secure speech (encryption) would be disabled. As could be expected, some third party dev would rise to the challenge, producing something with a back door, key escrow, or some other odious insert.

Would the GnuPG team be right to be upset of their code was appropriated, infected with some form of anti-user malice, then introduced into an unfree walled garden by the gatekeepers at Apple?

That's the extreme example, but the real world can deliver attacks on software freedom even more mundane. Suppose a copyright troll decides to get an injunction against supposed infringement. The unfree platforms, fed by unfree distribution channels, have the right to enforce that injunction against every honest user, and there isn't a damn thing those users can do about it - because they don't control the hardware they supposedly own. This nightmare need only be fed by a single firm with a submarine patent, who develops an app of their own then sends lawyers to eliminate the competition a la Al Capone.

This is about more than playing an unsigned Tetris variant.

Still think app stores on restricted platforms are innocuous?

[zekopeko]

No, and a bit of tokenism doesn't prove yours, either.

So the only viable answer then is "we don't know".


Look at Apple's vision, their conferences, their presentations, and the devices they're producing.

Jobs has remarked numerous times on the alleged need for a heavy-handed gatekeeper. He sees his users as idiots who need the mighty visionaries at Apple to spoon-feed them Apple's definition of good technology.

Considering their commercial success people find value in the "spoon-feed them Apple's definition of good technology".


Their approval process is intrusive and costs money. Devs exist at the pleasure of Apple. Apps have been censored, disallowed, and recalled at Apple's whim.

It's also no secret that Apple has become a Wall Street darling precisely because they're pumping out restricted platforms vertically integrated to app stores.

Nobody is holding a gun to the users head and saying "buy Apple".


That's not a free platform. We should understand and align with devs who volunteer their time to produce great software to extend software freedom. We also shouldn't be surprised when devs feel slighted by a platform which assimilates free code but refuses to pass freedom along to its users.

I don't recall anyone implying iOS is a completely free platform.

And what we should do is agree that each of us has different set of value or has a different vision of implementing shared values.


Perhaps we need a new FOSS license term explicitly restricting commercial appropriation to any platform which users lack the right to run code of their choosing, or is in other ways constrained by commercial gatekeepers, code signing, or TPM-esque technologies.

I think it's called GPLv3.


Free software ideology originated in a time when a user's ownership and control of his hardware was without question, and activism need only liberate a user's control of the software on that system. That is no longer the case. Unfree computing devices are proliferating rapidly. The monied interests behind these are actively trying to establish lockout.

That's far worse than Microsoft bundling a browser or producing blackbox document formats.

Your example is somewhat ironic considering MS now ships a ballot screen for the browser choice and provides the full specification to their "blackbox" document formats including patents promises.



I never said otherwise, but that's irrelevant to the greater ideological questions of free software.

As far as promoting unfree software is concerned, it doesn't really matter whether Apple does the appropriating, or whether it's one of the many authorized third-party developers.

If it feeds that hydra, it's working against a future of software freedom.

Then we disagree. Looking at everything in absolute terms isn't beneficial to users it is supposed to free.

Free Software is largely a for-profit pushed business today. Alienating companies simply to score ideology points seems a poor strategy. Balancing Free Software ideals and working real world solutions is a must if Free Software is to get in the hands of the people it supposedly wishes to free.

[czr114]

So the only viable answer then is "we don't know".

We don't know? Apple has been very public about their vision.



Considering their commercial success people find value in the "spoon-feed them Apple's definition of good technology".
So what?

Microsoft made a lot of money selling Windows ME bundled with Microsoft Works.

Popularity doesn't make it good technology, and good technology isn't necessarily free.



Nobody is holding a gun to the users head and saying "buy Apple".


Ridiculous hyperbole. This discussion is about whether Apple should be profiting from free software while simultaneously restricting software freedom.



I don't recall anyone implying iOS is a completely free platform.

It's among the most unfree platforms. Free software advocates are right to take exception to it.



And what we should do is agree that each of us has different set of value or has a different vision of implementing shared values.
Irrelevant. Your apparent propensity to willingly buy Apple products and adopt the restrictive world Steve Jobs has defined for you makes no impact on the values of the free software movement.



I think it's called GPLv3.

I'm no lawyer, but I can't seem to find evidence that it's wholly incompatible.



Your example is somewhat ironic considering MS now ships a ballot screen for the browser choice and provides the full specification to their "blackbox" document formats including patents promises.

My example is in no way ironic, because I made a clear historical reference to what was, at one point, a huge antitrust beef involving the chief proponent of unfree software. Microsoft's misconduct (or alleged misconduct, if you prefer) didn't restrict users to even close to the degree which Apple is doing now. Anyone who was irritated by bundled IE should be even more irritated by Apple's unfree platform.

Bundled IE and blackbox formats weren't, by comparison, that big of a deal. At least in those days, users could opt for unapproved alternatives.




Then we disagree. Looking at everything in absolute terms isn't beneficial to users it is supposed to free.
Software freedom, in principle alone, is extremely beneficial to users. The future development of humanity is more reliant on software and ideological freedom than it is on visually-appealing and well-integrated Twitter clients.



Free Software is largely a for-profit pushed business today. Alienating companies simply to score ideology points seems a poor strategy. Balancing Free Software ideals and working real world solutions is a must if Free Software is to get in the hands of the people it supposedly wishes to free.
Protecting software freedom to protect user freedom is a goal in and of itself. Free software shouldn't be used as bait to destroy software freedom.

Software freedom doesn't gain any points by users of an unfree platform running a signed instance of VLC.

If free software is assimilated wholesale into unfree platforms, and used to build up those platforms, then how does it advance the goal of software freedom?

[Dr. C]

What happens if restrictions on software freedom should migrate to restrictions on human freedom?

The spat between unfree governments and BlackBerry should serve as a good template for what we're likely to see in the future.

Theoretically, Apple has the power to revoke applications and deny software capabilities upon government demand, applicable to every device within a country. They can do this because they maintain veto capability using code signing on a restricted platform. They know which devices are in which countries, because platform-integrated app stores are fundamentally unfree channels serving only identified customers.

Imagine an unfree government ordering Apple to remove, say, strong encryption from an entire nation. Unfree governments have done that before, and they'll do it again. Apple likely will comply, just as Google was perfectly happy to do evil when the Chinese government ordered it to. Apple didn't get to be worth 300 billion dollars by standing up for the little guy.

If that were to happen, all effective programs for free, secure speech (encryption) would be disabled. As could be expected, some third party dev would rise to the challenge, producing something with a back door, key escrow, or some other odious insert.

Would the GnuPG team be right to be upset of their code was appropriated, infected with some form of anti-user malice, then introduced into an unfree walled garden by the gatekeepers at Apple?

That's the extreme example, but the real world can deliver attacks on software freedom even more mundane. Suppose a copyright troll decides to get an injunction against supposed infringement. The unfree platforms, fed by unfree distribution channels, have the right to enforce that injunction against every honest user, and there isn't a damn thing those users can do about it - because they don't control the hardware they supposedly own. This nightmare need only be fed by a single firm with a submarine patent, who develops an app of their own then sends lawyers to eliminate the competition a la Al Capone.

This is about more than playing an unsigned Tetris variant.

Still think app stores on restricted platforms are innocuous?

It has already happened: Apple Censors Dalai Lama IPhone Apps in China - PC World (http://www.pcworld.com/article/185604/apple_censors_dalai_lama_iphone_apps_in_china.html )

[saulgoode]

That's the main area I was unsure of. If the GPL covers both the binary and source, then there is an obvious violation; if not, and the source is available, there is a problem. A big problem, since that would truly rule out any GPL(3?) products from being marketed on a relatively closed system such as an iphone.

That makes it look like a classic case of cold and hard rules vs common sense, at least to me. Perhaps there should be a separate license for such a scenario.
There are indeed separate licenses for such scenarios, and copyright holders are free to choose from amongst those alternative licenses... or create one of their own. However, the copyright holders of the VLC project chose to use the GNU General Public License for their software, and by doing this were able to utilize GPLed code from other copyright holders (such as available from the libfaad2, libmpeg2, libmp3lame, libdvdnav, and libdvdread projects), all of whom have chosen terms and conditions of copying and distribution which must be honored.

Even if the Free Software Foundation were to publish a "non-Free/proprietary" license, it would not change the fact that those who contribute to projects under the terms of the GPL still deserve to have their choice respected and those terms adhered to.

[zekopeko]

We don't know? Apple has been very public about their vision.

Their vision being what exactly? Sell devices to their customers? Provide excellent user experience?


So what?

Microsoft made a lot of money selling Windows ME bundled with Microsoft Works.

Popularity doesn't make it good technology, and good technology isn't necessarily free.

Free technology doesn't necessarily make good software. If you can't provide software freedom to users in a tangible manner then you are simply moralizing.


Ridiculous hyperbole. This discussion is about whether Apple should be profiting from free software while simultaneously restricting software freedom.

Software freedom without software isn't really beneficial.


It's among the most unfree platforms. Free software advocates are right to take exception to it.
Irrelevant. Your apparent propensity to willingly buy Apple products and adopt the restrictive world Steve Jobs has defined for you makes no impact on the values of the free software movement.

My world is pretty free. It's even better when I don't have self-righteous zealots screaming from their self-perceived thrones of "morality". Ah religion.


I'm no lawyer, but I can't seem to find evidence that it's wholly incompatible.

Well considering how strictly some people interpret it I'm pretty sure it can cover all use cases.


My example is in no way ironic, because I made a clear historical reference to what was, at one point, a huge antitrust beef involving the chief proponent of unfree software. Microsoft's misconduct (or alleged misconduct, if you prefer) didn't restrict users to even close to the degree which Apple is doing now. Anyone who was irritated by bundled IE should be even more irritated by Apple's unfree platform.

Bundled IE and blackbox formats weren't, by comparison, that big of a deal. At least in those days, users could opt for unapproved alternatives.

Well to me it is ironic since you are here screaming how we shall all become slaves and yet history you mentioned shows a brighter future.


Software freedom, in principle alone, is extremely beneficial to users. The future development of humanity is more reliant on software and ideological freedom than it is on visually-appealing and well-integrated Twitter clients.

I fail to see the benefit of having no software to provide me with the benefits of software freedom.

[QUOTE]Protecting software freedom to protect user freedom is a goal in and of itself. Free software shouldn't be used as bait to destroy software freedom.

Software freedom doesn't gain any points by users of an unfree platform running a signed instance of VLC.

If free software is assimilated wholesale into unfree platforms, and used to build up those platforms, then how does it advance the goal of software freedom?

Principals are important but people are more important. The future isn't shaped by people unwilling to compromise.

And I'm done. No point in us debating this further. You're a hardliner, I'm not. The End

[Dr. C]

There are indeed separate licenses for such scenarios, and copyright holders are free to choose from amongst those alternative licenses... or create one of their own. However, the copyright holders of the VLC project chose to use the GNU General Public License for their software, and by doing this were able to utilize GPLed code from other copyright holders (such as available from the libfaad2, libmpeg2, libmp3lame, libdvdnav, and libdvdread projects), all of whom have chosen terms and conditions of copying and distribution which must be honored.

Even if the Free Software Foundation were to publish a "non-Free/proprietary" license, it would not change the fact that those who contribute to projects under the terms of the GPL still deserve to have their choice respected and those terms adhered to.

One has to wonder how many different copyright holders have been the victims of copyright infringement here by Apple? This is starting to look like a case for a class action against Apple for copyright infringement.

One of the interesting things about pirated FLOSS, especially under the GPL, is that there can be literally hundreds or thousands of individual copyright holders for a given piece software. The Linux kernel is a prime example. Pirate Microsoft Windows and one has to deal only with Microsoft, pirate Linux, on the other hand, and one has to deal with hundreds of copyright holders, ranging from multinational corporations, to single individuals, in multiple jurisdictions, any one of which can cause serious legal grief or they can start a class action.

[zekopeko]

One has to wonder how many different copyright holders have been the victims of copyright infringement here by Apple? This is starting to look like a case for a class action against Apple for copyright infringement.

That would be the most stupid move one could make. No point in making enemies.

[czr114]

Their vision being what exactly? Sell devices to their customers? Provide excellent user experience?
The excellent user experience part is subjective, but you're right - their goal is to sell, to each and every person they see as a software customer.

Hence, when push comes to shove, things that they can sell over and over take precedence over free (as in beer) software.

App stores and device restrictions are ways of muscling out free (as in freedom) software.

I'll stick with hardware I truly own, over which I have control, and on which runs software made by people who see users as something other than walking wallets.




Free technology doesn't necessarily make good software. If you can't provide software freedom to users in a tangible manner then you are simply moralizing.

Software freedom is already here. We've got dozens of distributions of GNU/Linux offering completely free software.

With the exception of developing and testing proprietary apps for proprietary platforms, there isn't anything relatively common when can't be done with free software.



Software freedom without software isn't really beneficial.

Where is this shortage of functional, fully-free software you keep talking about?



My world is pretty free. It's even better when I don't have self-righteous zealots screaming from their self-perceived thrones of "morality". Ah religion.

You seem to take that freedom for granted.

As was explained in a previous post, software freedom isn't about self-righteousness. There's a human rights angle, which you appear insulated from.

That being said, your iOs products won't run anything which Apple doesn't want you to have. As I said earlier, freedom to consume.



Well considering how strictly some people interpret it I'm pretty sure it can cover all use cases.

We'll leave that to the lawyers.



Well to me it is ironic since you are here screaming how we shall all become slaves and yet history you mentioned shows a brighter future.

More ridiculous hyperbole.

I said that, if current trends continue, we'll be living in a world with many more locked down platforms, most produced by vendors who want to monetize you as completely as possible, and occasionally abused by governments.

Are you denying the desires of the big vendors to preside over walled gardens?



I fail to see the benefit of having no software to provide me with the benefits of software freedom.

That software is already available, and it continues getting better. Defending a future of lockout, supposedly to your favorite widgets can get reskinned or something, is setting up a false choice.



Principals are important but people are more important. The future isn't shaped by people unwilling to compromise.

If you think people are important, then support ideals which allow people to freely run free software.

Otherwise, the big vendors are more than happy to continue narrowing freedom and building up barriers - although they may be willing to put a nice, well-rendered smiley face on that lockout, in the interests of compromise.



And I'm done. No point in us debating this further. You're a hardliner, I'm not. The End
That's a matter of definition. On fundamental issues, iterated compromise equals concession due to that pesky exponential function. Make sure to save your credit card in your Apple profile, you'll be needing it. Also, I hope you don't live in China.

[Dr. C]

That would be the most stupid move one could make. No point in making enemies.

Really? No copyright holder should sue if their copyrights are infringed? One may just get rid of copyright law entirely and allow the free copying of any work for any purpose.

[zekopeko]

Really? No copyright holder should sue if their copyrights are infringed?

Nope. Just that in this particular instance it would do more damage then good unless your point is to go gold digging.


One may just get rid of copyright law entirely and allow the free copying of any work for any purpose.

RMS doesn't approve.

[zekopeko]

The excellent user experience part is subjective, but you're right - their goal is to sell, to each and every person they see as a software customer.
Hence, when push comes to shove, things that they can sell over and over take precedence over free (as in beer) software.
App stores and device restrictions are ways of muscling out free (as in freedom) software.

Actually Free Software can exist in app stores without a problem if it isn't as anal as GPL. So your statement is incorrect (lets not go into the whole GPL v BSD debate).


I'll stick with hardware I truly own, over which I have control, and on which runs software made by people who see users as something other than walking wallets.

More power to you.


Software freedom is already here. We've got dozens of distributions of GNU/Linux offering completely free software.

There are 8 Linux distros that are "completely free software" by the FSF's standard. As opposed to hundreds that aren't.


With the exception of developing and testing proprietary apps for proprietary platforms, there isn't anything relatively common when can't be done with free software.
Where is this shortage of functional, fully-free software you keep talking about?

On iOS ;) .


You seem to take that freedom for granted.
As was explained in a previous post, software freedom isn't about self-righteousness. There's a human rights angle, which you appear insulated from.

I didn't say that software freedom is about self-righteousness. I said software freedom activist are being self-righteous zealots. It's about the approach. People like you are extremely off putting to the whole concept of software freedom.


That being said, your iOs products won't run anything which Apple doesn't want you to have. As I said earlier, freedom to consume.

It's perfectly legal to jailbreak iOS devices.

And that freedom to consume didn't even exist on cell phones before. So it looks like we are moving toward more freedom and not less as you continue to imply.


More ridiculous hyperbole.
I said that, if current trends continue, we'll be living in a world with many more locked down platforms, most produced by vendors who want to monetize you as completely as possible, and occasionally abused by governments.
Are you denying the desires of the big vendors to preside over walled gardens?

Those trends existed before the iPhone. If anything the iPhone revolutionized the phone market. That you can't see the good there is probably a function of your mild paranoia.


That software is already available, and it continues getting better. Defending a future of lockout, supposedly to your favorite widgets can get reskinned or something, is setting up a false choice.
If you think people are important, then support ideals which allow people to freely run free software.

Well you apparently support people only when they fall neatly into your fundamentalist world view.

I find your whole approach horrible and self defeating.


Otherwise, the big vendors are more than happy to continue narrowing freedom and building up barriers - although they may be willing to put a nice, well-rendered smiley face on that lockout, in the interests of compromise.

More ridiculous hyperbole.


That's a matter of definition. On fundamental issues, iterated compromise equals concession due to that pesky exponential function. Make sure to save your credit card in your Apple profile, you'll be needing it. Also, I hope you don't live in China.

I guess you never buy online then.

[saulgoode]

Nope. Just that in this particular instance it would do more damage then good unless your point is to go gold digging.

The point is freedom,in particular, "the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html)"

If you do not want that freedom for yourself, that is your prerogative; however, you are not entitled to take away that freedom from those to whom it is being provided. If you do not want to extend that freedom to people who obtain software from you then don't provide them with GPLed software.

[zekopeko]

The point is freedom,in particular, "the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html)"

If you do not want that freedom for yourself, that is your prerogative; however, you are not entitled to take away that freedom from those to whom it is being provided. If you do not want to extend that freedom to people who obtain software from you then don't provide them with GPLed software.

Way to miss my point.

[saulgoode]

Way to miss my point.

Well, your point seems to be that if programmers do not share in your obsequious devotion towards the goal of attaining maximum marketshare, they are to be branded as self-righteous religious zealots. I doubt I'm the only one to note the sublime irony in this.

[Dr. C]

Nope. Just that in this particular instance it would do more damage then good unless your point is to go gold digging.
RMS doesn't approve.

Actually it can do a lot of good in this case for the FSF to sue.

There are various possibilities here. If Apple settles, the most likely scenario, they would have to change the wording in their terms of use, to something along the lines of the Android store,
4.2 Some components of Products (whether developed by Google or third parties) may also be governed by applicable open source software licenses. In the event of a conflict between the Terms and any such licenses, the open source software licenses shall prevail with respect to those components. http://www.google.com/mobile/android/market-tos.html Yes RMS hates the term "Open Source" but he would have to live with it.

The result would be a flood of FLOSS in the Apple store which would benefit, Apple its customers and the FLOSS communities. If on the other hand Apple decides to fight, and is found liable for copyright infringement, no company will touch the "Walled Garden" approach to software distribution because of the fear of legal liability over copyright infringement. That would be a major victory for the FSF and software freedom. My take is that the FSF will have to deal with the "Apple problem" by litigating sooner or later.

[zekopeko]

Actually it can do a lot of good in this case for the FSF to sue.
There are various possibilities here. If Apple settles, the most likely scenario, they would have to change the wording in their terms of use, to something along the lines of the Android store, http://www.google.com/mobile/android/market-tos.html

I doubt they would have to settle. They have good lawyers and they would have no problem to show themselves as victims to the judge and jury.


Yes RMS hates the term "Open Source" but he would have to live with it.

That wasn't my point. RMS would hate to see the abolishment of copyright because it would make the GPL worthless.


The result would be a flood of FLOSS in the Apple store which would benefit, Apple its customers and the FLOSS communities. If on the other hand Apple decides to fight, and is found liable for copyright infringement, no company will touch the "Walled Garden" approach to software distribution because of the fear of legal liability over copyright infringement. That would be a major victory for the FSF and software freedom. My take is that the FSF will have to deal with the "Apple problem" by litigating sooner or later.

I understand that you really, really don't like Apple but your above scenario is highly unlikely. "Walled Gardens" existed before the advent of the app store and they haven't changed. Even if there was a lawsuit that was successful it wouldn't most likely change anything.

[zekopeko]

Well, your point seems to be that if programmers do not share in your obsequious devotion towards the goal of attaining maximum marketshare, they are to be branded as self-righteous religious zealots. I doubt I'm the only one to note the sublime irony in this.

Again, way to miss my point.

My point is that the current approach to this kind of situations is counter productive and seriously off putting. The VLC developer who started this whole ordeal exercised his right but the way he did it was extremely selfish and was used to make a political point in the name of the whole project but without their consent.

[Dr. C]

I doubt they would have to settle. They have good lawyers and they would have no problem to show themselves as victims to the judge and jury.

Time will tell



That wasn't my point. RMS would hate to see the abolishment of copyright because it would make the GPL worthless.

I would suggest reading what RMS has actually said on the subject. Not that I agree with him entrely though.


I understand that you really, really don't like Apple but your above scenario is highly unlikely. "Walled Gardens" existed before the advent of the app store and they haven't changed. Even if there was a lawsuit that was successful it wouldn't most likely change anything.

All I can say is that I would really, really like to be short on AAPL when the verdict in favor of the FSF on such a lawsuit was released.

[jwbrase]

No, you become a software "pirate" by committing intentional copyright infringement.

And, with GPL'd software, you commit copyright infringement, and thus become a pirate, by taking away the GPL-granted freedoms from the software.


You are basing your whole statement on the notion that Apple did something wrong here. They didn't "appropriate" FOSS into their AppStore, the app was submitted by a 3rd party that has nothing to do with Apple beyond making applications for iOS.

And Apple ought to have at least glanced over the license when they decided whether to approve the app, and determined that since the terms of the GPL and the TOS invalidate each other, that the App cannot legally be distributed through the iStore.



Another point you miss here is that commercializing GPL software is perfectly acceptable. Anybody can sell GPL software. They just have to release the code (to simplify it).

But this software wasn't being sold for money. The app was being sold for $0.00 in the store. The violation was releasing it under terms that restricted freedoms that the GPL requires for valid distribution. Commercialization (in the sense of "selling for money", at least), is not the problem here.


There is nothing about the App Store or Apple that is unfriendly towards Open Source.

Maybe not. They are hostile to Free Software, though.



The GNU GPL, specifically, is unfriendly towards the App Store's terms of service. BSD, MIT, etc, licenses all seem to be A-OK.

The GPL and the App Store TOS are mutually antagonistic.

[zekopeko]

And, with GPL'd software, you commit copyright infringement, and thus become a pirate, by taking away the GPL-granted freedoms from the software.

You must have missed the "intentional" part.


And Apple ought to have at least glanced over the license when they decided whether to approve the app, and determined that since the terms of the GPL and the TOS invalidate each other, that the App cannot legally be distributed through the iStore.

AFAIK the app is submitted as a binary. This the AppStore page for VLC: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/vlc-media-player/id390885556?mt=8

Notice the complete lack of any mention of GPL. The copyright notice states: © 1996-2010 The VideoLAN team. Now I know this might be strange to hear but the GPL isn't a widely known licence/aynthing outside specific circles. It is unlikely that the person examining this app had any idea on the potential legal problems concerning the ToS and GPL or even knew the app has GPL code or what GPL is at all. They trusted that the submitter has proper rights which is a reasonable assumption.

I think that Apple is here in the right since they unknowingly and unintentionally allowed the app to get in to the store. The real problem here are Applidium and the VLC devs that didn't do their due diligence when giving permission to Applidium on the port.


But this software wasn't being sold for money. The app was being sold for $0.00 in the store. The violation was releasing it under terms that restricted freedoms that the GPL requires for valid distribution. Commercialization (in the sense of "selling for money", at least), is not the problem here.

I don't remember anybody stating otherwise.


Maybe not. They are hostile to Free Software, though.

Not true. BSD, Apache2 and other similar Free Software licences are welcome in the store. Free Software doesn't consist solely of GPL software.


The GPL and the App Store TOS are mutually antagonistic.

That part is currently uncertain.

[Dr. C]

You must have missed the "intentional" part.



AFAIK the app is submitted as a binary. This the AppStore page for VLC: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/vlc-media-player/id390885556?mt=8

Notice the complete lack of any mention of GPL. The copyright notice states: © 1996-2010 The VideoLAN team. Now I know this might be strange to hear but the GPL isn't a widely known licence/aynthing outside specific circles. It is unlikely that the person examining this app had any idea on the potential legal problems concerning the ToS and GPL or even knew the app has GPL code or what GPL is at all. They trusted that the submitter has proper rights which is a reasonable assumption.

I think that Apple is here in the right since they unknowingly and unintentionally allowed the app to get in to the store. The real problem here are Applidium and the VLC devs that didn't do their due diligence when giving permission to Applidium on the port.



I don't remember anybody stating otherwise.



Not true. BSD, Apache2 and other similar Free Software licences are welcome in the store. Free Software doesn't consist solely of GPL software.



That part is currently uncertain.

And how long does it take to enter VideoLAN into Google and be presented with a page talking about open source? If the reviewers had done the most basic of research they would have found out about the GPL license. Gross negligence and incompetence is no defense for intentional copyright infringement.

[zekopeko]

And how long does it take to enter VideoLAN into Google and be presented with a page talking about open source? If the reviewers had done the most basic of research they would have found out about the GPL license. Gross negligence and incompetence is no defense for intentional copyright infringement.

You're projecting. The app store review guidelines aren't meant to test if the app is infringing but if the app is within the UI guidelines and isn't doing anything nasty. The whole contract part that talks about ownership of the code was resolved when the developer signed up for iOS developer program.

I understand that hate warms your petty heart when you use words such as "gross negligence" and "incompetence" and "intentional copyright infringement" but the fact of the matter is that Apple here is the victim. They trusted Applidium that they had the rights to submit the app and Applidium trusted the VLC project and, as far as I can tell, acted in good faith.

And before you go on another of your little hate fests please try and at least abide by one of the accomplishments of modern society: the presumption of innocence.

[Dr. C]

You're projecting. The app store review guidelines aren't meant to test if the app is infringing but if the app is within the UI guidelines and isn't doing anything nasty. The whole contract part that talks about ownership of the code was resolved when the developer signed up for iOS developer program.

I understand that hate warms your petty heart when you use words such as "gross negligence" and "incompetence" and "intentional copyright infringement" but the fact of the matter is that Apple here is the victim. They trusted Applidium that they had the rights to submit the app and Applidium trusted the VLC project and, as far as I can tell, acted in good faith.

And before you go on another of your little hate fests please try and at least abide by one of the accomplishments of modern society: the presumption of innocence.

If Apple were charged with a criminal act then the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in many democratic countries applies. Copyright infringement for the most part is a civil matter and the standard of proof, balance of probabilities, is a lot lower.

I would suggest here stepping back and asking the question? If an online store owner was absolved form copyright infringement on the basis of "I trusted the software distributor, I am the victim here" where would that put companies like Adobe, Microsoft, Intuit etc and even Apple itself? This affects a lot more than just the FSF and FLOSS.

[zekopeko]

If Apple were charged with a criminal act then the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in many democratic countries applies. Copyright infringement for the most part is a civil matter and the standard of proof, balance of probabilities, is a lot lower.

OK fair point on that. But still you haven't provided anything that would point that Apple is at fault. "They didn't google it" isn't really proof of anything.


I would suggest here stepping back and asking the question? If an online store owner was absolved form copyright infringement on the basis of "I trusted the software distributor, I am the victim here" where would that put companies like Adobe, Microsoft, Intuit etc and even Apple itself? This affects a lot more than just the FSF and FLOSS.

The question is: "I trusted the (perceived) owner, was I wrong in doing so?". Mind you Applidium got approval from the VideoLAN project. The only reason VideoLAN project didn't submit it is because they are a non-profit and Apple made some hurdles for non-profits in the registration process.

[Dr. C]

OK fair point on that. But still you haven't provided anything that would point that Apple is at fault. "They didn't google it" isn't really proof of anything.

The question is: "I trusted the (perceived) owner, was I wrong in doing so?". Mind you Applidium got approval from the VideoLAN project. The only reason VideoLAN project didn't submit it is because they are a non-profit and Apple made some hurdles for non-profits in the registration process.

I would provide a link to the page on the Apple store with the infringing application as proof, but that would be against the TOS of this forum, as it would linking to copyright infringing software. Seriously that is all that is needed. Apple very likely has a strong claim against Applidium and possibly VideoLan, but that does not absolve Apple from liability to the copyright holders.

[zekopeko]

If Apple were charged with a criminal act then the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in many democratic countries applies. Copyright infringement for the most part is a civil matter and the standard of proof, balance of probabilities, is a lot lower.

I would suggest here stepping back and asking the question? If an online store owner was absolved form copyright infringement on the basis of "I trusted the software distributor, I am the victim here" where would that put companies like Adobe, Microsoft, Intuit etc and even Apple itself? This affects a lot more than just the FSF and FLOSS.


I would provide a link to the page on the Apple store with the infringing application as proof, but that would be against the TOS of this forum, as it would linking to copyright infringing software. Seriously that is all that is needed. Apple very likely has a strong claim against Applidium and possibly VideoLan, but that does not absolve Apple from liability to the copyright holders.

I think I didn't deny that Apple committed copyright infringement. AFAIK anybody that distributed or facilitated distribution or used it is technically committing it. My point was that Apple has excellent defense here.

BTW here is the page for it: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/vlc-media-player/id390885556?mt=8

[Dr. C]

I think I didn't deny that Apple committed copyright infringement. AFAIK anybody that distributed or facilitated distribution or used it is technically committing it. My point was that Apple has excellent defense here.
...

What Apple actually has here is a very good case against Applidium. By the way those end users who downloaded the application are not infringing the copyright because they are covered by Section 4 of the GPL as long they are otherwise in compliance with the GPL.

Of course the IANAL disclaimer applies. The end users should consult a lawyer and who knows they may be advised to jailbreak their iDevices to remain in compliance with the GPL :lolflag:


4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.