Apple Pulls VLC Player from App Store Due to GPL

[lovinglinux]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2375476,00.asp

[earthpigg]

This is the old thread on the subject, if anyone is interested

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1615994 :D

[CraigPaleo]

As they should have. They can't add DRM to free software unless it's under an LGPL or BSD style license.

[Chronon]

I'm still not too clear about the relationship between Applidium and VideoLAN.

[lovinglinux]

This is the old thread on the subject, if anyone is interested

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1615994 :D

Oops :)

[earthpigg]

Oops :)

The article you linked brings new and recent information to the table, in addition to summarizing what was discussed in the previous thread.

I wouldn't consider it a duplicate thread, so no need for 'oops'. :P

[handy]

So what's to stop "the man in the street" Apple OS X, user, from downloading VLC for OS X, & carrying on as usual?

Is there going to be no more VLC for OS X?

If VLC is still available I don't see what the problem is. The GPL has been upheld & the OS X, user has to go to the VLC site & download & install from there.

Just like I do.

[RiceMonster]

So what's to stop "the man in the street" Apple OS X, user, from downloading VLC for OS X, & carrying on as usual?

Is there going to be no more VLC for OS X?

If VLC is still available I don't see what the problem is. The GPL has been upheld & the OS X, user has to go to the VLC site & download & install from there.

Just like I do.

This is about the App Store for iOS, not OS X.


Anyway, this makes me sad. I'm glad I already have it installed, because the VLC app is a great way to watch videos on iOS devices without converting them to .mp4 or whatever that apple format is.

[Dr. C]

There is a simple solution to this issue that avoids copyright infringement in many countries including the United States and Canada. It is called jailbreaking.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

There is a simple solution to this issue that avoids copyright infringement in many countries including the United States and Canada. It is called jailbreaking.

In fact, if you jailbreak your phone, you will be able to install VLC from a source that does not violate the terms of the GPL license. If you are upset by this and want to install software from a GPL-friendly distributor, you should jailbreak your phone.

[handy]

This is about the App Store for iOS, not OS X.

Oh! oops.

So App Store integration is coming with OS X, Lion...


This kind of behaviour will cost Apple as alternatives to their systems keep popping up, with increasingly more user friendly interfaces & a growing variety of software to run on them.

I look forward to the day when their financial planners advise the board to drop DRM & knock down the walls around their garden, as it is costing them money.

[Dr. C]

In fact, if you jailbreak your phone, you will be able to install VLC from a source that does not violate the terms of the GPL license. If you are upset by this and want to install software from a GPL-friendly distributor, you should jailbreak your phone.

... and other applications such as GNU GO, without infringing on anyone's copyright.

[earthpigg]

What if someone created a non-GPL'd App in the App Store that did nothing but download and install VLC when run?

VLC-installer can comply with Apple's TOS.

VLC itself can comply with the GPL.

[Dr. C]

What if someone created a non-GPL'd App in the App Store that did nothing but download and install VLC when run?

VLC-installer can comply with Apple's TOS.

VLC itself can comply with the GPL.

It won't work because Apple must first approve software for it to be run on an iPhone or iPad. It is after all a closed censored platform, and Apple uses DRM to enforce this. The only way to run non Apple approved applications on an iPhone / iPad is to jailbreak the device.

[zekopeko]

I'm still not too clear about the relationship between Applidium and VideoLAN.

Here you go: http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=10086935&postcount=7

[alaukikyo]

i saw hedgewars in one of the screens of the mac osx store.
so is the desktop app store free of drm?

[Mr. Picklesworth]

i saw hedgewars in one of the screens of the mac osx store.
so is the desktop app store free of drm?

It doesn't really say much. Different developers feel differently about these things. If the people with stakes in Hedgewars are happy making an implicit exception to the GPL for Apple, there is nothing stopping them. (Though anyone with any ownership has veto power).

I would be surprised if the desktop app store had the same kind of restrictiveness as the mobile app store since the platform it's building on is open to tinkering. However, we also need to consider the terms of service; not just the technologies in place. (Incidentally, considering just the latter is why the US's and soon Canada's legal protections of DRM are incredibly broken on many levels).

[Merk42]

Oh! oops.

So App Store integration is coming with OS X, Lion...


This kind of behaviour will cost Apple as alternatives to their systems keep popping up, with increasingly more user friendly interfaces & a growing variety of software to run on them.

I look forward to the day when their financial planers advise the board to drop DRM & knock down the walls around their garden, as it is costing them money.

Yea because the walled garden DRM behavior of the Apps totally hurt Apple with the iPhone I mean, that thing wasn't successful at all, and no one writies apps for its store anymore. :rolleyes:

[Dr. C]

The DMCA can no longer be used to prevent the jail breaking of iPhones and iPads in the United States after the ruling the Librarian of Congress last year This was a major victory for the EFF. Apple fought tooth an nail to prevent this and lost. http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26

This issue is not really about DRM. It is about Apple amending the license terms of third party software developers as a condition of listing the software in the Apple store. The best approach is actually Microsoft's which does not try to amend third party software license terms, Google (Android) leaves Open Source third party software license terms alone but tries to amend propriety software license terms.

Apple needs to learn from Microsoft on how to deal with the GPL in a software store.

[abdulapopoola]

This is interesting, so what alternative is Apple now offering?

[handy]

Yea because the walled garden DRM behavior of the Apps totally hurt Apple with the iPhone I mean, that thing wasn't successful at all, and no one writies apps for its store anymore. :rolleyes:

Oh! oops. It looks like I was being inarticulate once again.

I should have given some indication that I'm over 50 years old & learned a long time ago not to expect everything to happen in the next week... :P

[Dr. C]

VLC for the iPhone is now available on Cydia where it belongs. http://www.iphonedownloadblog.com/2011/01/08/vlc-for-iphone-pulled-from-app-store-now-available-on-cydia/ No need to infringe on copyrights.

[alaukikyo]

It doesn't really say much. Different developers feel differently about these things. If the people with stakes in Hedgewars are happy making an implicit exception to the GPL for Apple, there is nothing stopping them. (Though anyone with any ownership has veto power).

is there no vlc in osx app store?

[HappinessNow]

There is a simple solution to this issue that avoids copyright infringement in many countries including the United States and Canada. It is called jailbreaking.


In fact, if you jailbreak your phone, you will be able to install VLC from a source that does not violate the terms of the GPL license. If you are upset by this and want to install software from a GPL-friendly distributor, you should jailbreak your phone.


It won't work because Apple must first approve software for it to be run on an iPhone or iPad. It is after all a closed censored platform, and Apple uses DRM to enforce this. The only way to run non Apple approved applications on an iPhone / iPad is to jailbreak the device.

It seems like Jailbreaking would be a no-brainer?

I am so glad I own a rooted Nexus One!

[jerenept]

You all don't seem to understand, a Nokia employee on the VLC team pulled it off the App Store. Not Apple. According to tuaw.com (http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-store/)
Before anyone grabs a pitchfork and/or torch and starts marching toward Cupertino, it's worth noting that VLC's removal from the App Store has nothing to do with Apple's preferences. Rather, it's a direct result of one man's misguided crusade... a man who, (perhaps) coincidentally, is an employee of Nokia, one of Apple's competitors in the mobile space.

Rémi Denis-Courmont [who is a lead contributor to the VLC project, and therefore had the grounds to pursue a licensing claim based on his included and GPL'ed code within the VLC iOS app –Ed.] waged a one-man campaign against Applidium's iOS port of VLC, claiming the app violated the GNU public license (GPL) because App Store purchases have Digital Rights Management (DRM) applied to them. The end result seems somewhat counterproductive, because now unless you downloaded VLC before it was pulled from the App Store, you can't install it on your iOS device at all. So much for ensuring that VLC can be freely distributed.

It's also important to note that VideoLAN, the group that's responsible for the desktop version of VLC, had nothing to do with getting Applidium's VLC port removed from the App Store; as an organization, VideoLAN itself did not pursue removal of the VLC app from the App Store. As berserk as it sounds, it really has been all about one guy's beef with the App Store's rules. One guy with a vested interest in seeing Apple lose to his employer, Nokia. [Note that for many open source projects, the distinction between a single developer and 'the project' is not always clear and the hierarchy (or lack thereof) may be somewhat ad-hoc; we don't know the internal politics or leadership structure of the VideoLAN project nor Denis-Courmont's administrative role. –Ed.]

[CraigPaleo]

You all don't seem to understand, a Nokia employee on the VLC team pulled it off the App Store. Not Apple. According to tuaw.com (http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-store/)

Semantics. Apple pulled it because of him. The guy got it pulled. It's for the same reasons. :D

[zekopeko]

Semantics. Apple pulled it because of him. They guy got it pulled. It's for the same reasons. :D

A more correct title would be "VLC developer makes Apple pull VLC from the App Store due to apparent incompatibility of GPL and iOS ToS".

[Merk42]

A more correct title would be "VLC developer makes Apple pull VLC from the App Store due to apparent incompatibility of GPL and iOS ToS".Shh, get that logic out of here. This is ubuntuforums, where "{news story} involves {behavior} of {commercial company}" therefore {commercial company} is always evil, and at fault.

[Viva]

I always knew apple were evil:mad:

[jerenept]

Shh, get that logic out of here. This is ubuntuforums, where "{news story} involves {behavior} of {commercial company}" therefore {commercial company} is always evil, and at fault.

Not to mention that the VLC developer was an employee of Nokia, and was trying to, i dunno attack Apple? ???

[zekopeko]

I always knew apple were evil:mad:

Because they trusted the person that submitted the app had the rights to do so? Man that is soooooo evil! Bad Apple for using good faith in your business dealings.

[mamamia88]

why would they put a free open source app on a marketplace? couldn't people who want it just go to the website and download it? doesn't make much sense that it was on there to begin with

[lovinglinux]

why would they put a free open source app on a marketplace? couldn't people who want it just go to the website and download it? doesn't make much sense that it was on there to begin with

Because as far as I know, is the only way that "iUsers" can install applications if they do not jailbreak their devices.

[RiceMonster]

Because as far as I know, is the only way that "iUsers" can install applications if they do not jailbreak their devices.

Yep, that's right.

[Dr. C]

Because as far as I know, is the only way that "iUsers" can install applications if they do not jailbreak their devices.

That is the root cause of this entire issue.

[KiwiNZ]

That is the real reason Apple is evil, and the root cause of this entire issue.

From the Code of Conduct

"Attacks and derogatory terms of any kind are not welcome. This includes references to other operating systems and the companies that produce them."

[piquat]

That is the root cause of this entire issue.

If that's the "root cause" in the complaitant's head, is he doing this in an effort to try to get the iCommunity to jump up and down about the fact that they can't install apps without jailbreaking? I can see a few hopping mad people but the majority of them probably won't take the time out of their day to even understand the problem.

[HappinessNow]

why would they put a free open source app on a marketplace? couldn't people who want it just go to the website and download it? doesn't make much sense that it was on there to begin with


Because as far as I know, is the only way that "iUsers" can install applications if they do not jailbreak their devices.


Yep, that's right.


That is the root cause of this entire issue.

Which is yet another reason why using an Android device over an iOS device just makes sense:

http://goo.gl/VrrU0

[lovinglinux]

Which is yet another reason why using an Android device over an iOS device just makes sense:

BTW, Google Android Surpasses Apple iPhone Market Share (http://www.informationweek.com/news/smb/mobile/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=229000356&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_News) in US.

[The Flying Penguin]

http://www.techspot.com/news/41908-apple-removes-vlc-app-from-app-store-gpl-to-blame.html

Frankly, I am not the least bit surprised. To me it appears to be a blatant attempt to stifle competition that brings freedom and choice to the user. I suppose an open future is a rather frighting when your business model revolves around selling closed source products. This must just be their way trying to diminish awareness of what open source software can do. I mean, why help turn users onto something that competes with your product?

Don't get me wrong. From an ease of use and security standpoint they make a solid OS. They were also the driving force in the rise in popularity of portable music players and no are helping to popularize the tablet. I just think embracing and learning how to adapt open source to their business model would be more beneficial then trying to suppress it.

Just as an example, if Apple would release the necessary information to the open source world so that Linux drivers could be developed for the Ipad, there is a good possibility I would buy one. Its a solid device hardware wise but I want a different OS.

[sydbat]

http://www.techspot.com/news/41908-apple-removes-vlc-app-from-app-store-gpl-to-blame.html

Frankly, I am not the least bit surprised. To me it appears to be a blatant attempt to stifle competition that brings freedom and choice to the user. I suppose an open future is a rather frighting when your business model revolves around selling closed source products. This must just be their way trying to diminish awareness of what open source software can do. I mean, why help turn users onto something that competes with your product?

Don't get me wrong. From an ease of use and security standpoint they make a solid OS. They were also the driving force in the rise in popularity of portable music players and no are helping to popularize the tablet. I just think embracing and learning how to adapt open source to their business model would be more beneficial then trying to suppress it.

Just as an example, if Apple would release the necessary information to the open source world so that Linux drivers could be developed for the Ipad, there is a good possibility I would buy one. Its a solid device hardware wise but I want a different OS.Hang on...where have I heard this recently?? Oh ya - http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1662821

[The Flying Penguin]

Doh! I should have known it would have already been noticed.

A mod might as well close the this thread then. :(

[lovinglinux]

http://www.techspot.com/news/41908-apple-removes-vlc-app-from-app-store-gpl-to-blame.html

Frankly, I am not the least bit surprised. To me it appears to be a blatant attempt to stifle competition that brings freedom and choice to the user. I suppose an open future is a rather frighting when your business model revolves around selling closed source products. This must just be their way trying to diminish awareness of what open source software can do. I mean, why help turn users onto something that competes with your product?

You got it wrong. Apple do not have anything against VLC or open source apps. It was a VLC developer who forced Apple to remove it, because of incompatibilities of their business model with the GPL license.

[jerenept]

You got it wrong. Apple do not have anything against VLC or open source apps. It was a VLC developer who forced Apple to remove it, because of incompatibilities of their business model with the GPL license.

I've been saying that for the last 10 bajillion years in this thread and no-one will listen :(

[saulgoode]

You got it wrong. Apple do not have anything against VLC or open source apps. It was a VLC developer who forced Apple to remove it, because of incompatibilities of their business model with the GPL license.

Apple has no more right to make copies and distribute that VLC developer's software than that developer would have to make copies of and distribute OS X. In order to distribute copies of a copyrighted work, you must have authorization from the copyright holder. If Rémi Denis-Courmont wished to distribute copies of OS X, he'd need to get permission from Apple to so. If Apple wishes to distribute copies of Mr Denis-Courmont's software, they need his permission to do so.

Mr Denis-Courmont (as well as other contributors to the VLC project) have chosen to permit such distribution of the software they wrote as long as distributors meet certain obligations. By not meeting those obligations, Apple did not have authorization to distribute copies of the software and was therefore committing copyright infringement.

[zekopeko]

Apple has no more right to make copies and distribute that VLC developer's software than that developer would have to make copies of and distribute OS X. In order to distribute copies of a copyrighted work, you must have authorization from the copyright holder. If Rémi Denis-Courmont wished to distribute copies of OS X, he'd need to get permission from Apple to so. If Apple wishes to distribute copies of Mr Denis-Courmont's software, they need his permission to do so.

Mr Denis-Courmont (as well as other contributors to the VLC project) have chosen to permit such distribution of the software they wrote as long as distributors meet certain obligations. By not meeting those obligations, Apple did not have authorization to distribute copies of the software and was therefore committing copyright infringement.

So tl;dr is: "Don't submit apps to the AppStore for which you have no right to do so".

I see no fault with Apple here. They acted in good faith.

[Dr. C]

Apple has no more right to make copies and distribute that VLC developer's software than that developer would have to make copies of and distribute OS X. In order to distribute copies of a copyrighted work, you must have authorization from the copyright holder. If Rémi Denis-Courmont wished to distribute copies of OS X, he'd need to get permission from Apple to so. If Apple wishes to distribute copies of Mr Denis-Courmont's software, they need his permission to do so.

Mr Denis-Courmont (as well as other contributors to the VLC project) have chosen to permit such distribution of the software they wrote as long as distributors meet certain obligations. By not meeting those obligations, Apple did not have authorization to distribute copies of the software and was therefore committing copyright infringement.

This is right on. Now the real question becomes: Will the copyright holders take Apple to court and seek statutory damages under US copyright law for copyright infringement?

[zekopeko]

This is right on. Now the real question becomes: Will the copyright holders take Apple to court and seek statutory damages under US copyright law for copyright infringement?

Only if Denis-Courmont wants to be a bigger douche then he is now.

[Dr. C]

Only if Denis-Courmont wants to be a bigger douche then he is now.

Whether Denis-Courmont or Apple is in the right here is for a court of law to determine.

[jerenept]

Only if Denis-Courmont wants to be a bigger douche then he is now.

the people who lose out on this kind of nonsense are us, the users. People download and use VLC on iPhone for a reason, you know.

[zekopeko]

Whether Denis-Courmont or Apple is in the right here is for a court of law to determine.

I wasn't talking about legal correctness. Thankfully you aren't a judge because it's pretty obvious were your biases lie.

[zekopeko]

the people who lose out on this kind of nonsense are us, the users. People download and use VLC on iPhone for a reason, you know.

The saddest part is that this whole ordeal was simply so Denis-Courmont could parade Apple as the enemy of FOSS. He hasn't even tried to publicly contact Apple and see if this can be fixed. The whole point was to point fingers at Apple and preach to the choir.

[KiwiNZ]

"Any topic or discussion that causes problems or drama will be closed. This area is intended for fun and community building, not arguments. Please take those elsewhere. Thanks!"

And in that light... thread closed