VLC developer takes a stand against DRM enforcement in Apple's App Store

http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/vlc-enforcement

by tjr • 16 years ago

57 83 16 years ago

tragiclos• 16 years ago

All they would have to do is follow the license's conditions to help keep the software free. Instead, Apple has decided that they prefer to impose Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) and proprietary legal terms on all programs in the App Store, and they'd rather kick out GPLed software than change their own rules. Their obstinance prevents you from having this great software on Apple devices—not the GPL or the people enforcing it.

I don't think Apple is the only one being obstinate here. The App Store definitely defines strict terms about how an app can be distributed, but so does the GPL.

lambda5• 16 years ago

The GPLs rules are only about preserving end-user freedom (including the freedom to modify and redistribute software). Saying that the GPL has "strict rules" and is thus the same as the App Store is like saying that putting someone in jail for kidnapping is just as bad as kidnapping in the first place, because you're restricting someone's freedom. Yes, laws and jail for kidnappers restrict their freedom, but they only constrain you from taking someone else's freedom away.

Likewise, the GPL only restricts you from things you do that take away other people's freedom. If Apple just allowed its end users to have the freedom required by the GPL, there would be no conflict.

Locke16893• 16 years ago

No, the GPL defines explicit restrictions about what the end user can and can't do with the software. In my book, that's less freedom.

Now, my tenet is just as flimsy as your tenet -- can't you see that your definition of "freedom" is flexible between people and that your freedom may not be another person's freedom? Because degrees of freedom are a subjective and relative interpretation all we can say objectively is that both the GPL and the App Store's EULA have restrictions and they both attempt to preserve an ecosystem that they see to be beneficial.

X-Istence• 16 years ago

Why can't VLC change their license to something that works with Apple's App Store license agreement. Clearly the VLC developers wanted Apple to distribute their Application because why was it otherwise created and put up on the App Store in the first place?

</devils advocate>

BigZaphod6• 16 years ago

In theory, they could. I suspect that, practically, that's not going to be possible. I don't know all the details, but I imagine it'd mean going to every contributor and getting some kind of statement that they are allowing their code to be relicensed under a new license. That'd be pretty nasty. I believe Squeak Smalltalk went through something like this and it took years.

BigZaphod6• 16 years ago

This isn't much of a stand, IMO. Apple will just pull it unceremoniously.

Those who loved having it on their devices lose. VLC loses "customers." The GPL loses by looking worse than Apple's own rules. Apple loses by looking as if their approval process failed to catch yet another edge case.

Everyone loses.

mofey• 16 years ago

How does GPL lose by pushing software to be open?

BigZaphod6• 16 years ago

It's ironic to me that "openness" is cited as a reason to prevent certain software from being used and enjoyed on a specific platform.

tzs5• 16 years ago

Because numerous other FLOSS licenses, including others that are copyleft licenses such as MS-PL, do not run into problems if someone uses code under those licenses in an app that they distribute through the App Store.

The GPL ends up standing out as the "free" license that makes it hardest to actually distribute free software and reuse free code in other free software projects.

lambda5• 16 years ago

So, you would rather have Apple win, and everyone else lose, by allowing Apple to simply distribute any software the want under their own terms, without regard to the licensing terms its creator licenses it under? You would rather have Apple win, and users lose, by Apple getting free software to distribute on their platform while still being allowed to lock their users down?

The FSF (and the VLC developers in question) would rather have their software distributed in the App Store, as long as Apple complies with the terms of the license. The Android Market has no problems with this (and even if it did, you can install apps that you don't get from the Market on an Android phone).

By locking users down, not allowing them to install their own software except through the App Store, and not allowing applications to be distributed under licenses of their creators choosing in the App Store, Apple is limiting the software that users can use on their phone. Apple seems to have a policy of ignoring free software licenses in their app review process, until the developer actually complains, but the fact that they ignored and violated the license despite their draconian review process, and only pulling software once someone complains, seems calculated to allow them to blame the developers for the app's removal (as you are doing) rather than the blame being placed on their own policies, which are the real reason that users's freedom is restricted.

alextgordon2• 16 years ago

To be honest, in this specific case I'd rather have VLC.

BigZaphod6• 16 years ago

Apple does not agree to abide by your terms. Instead, by clicking "I Agree" when you submit a new app, you (app submitter) is agreeing to abide by Apple's terms. That's an important distinction in this case. It's irrelevant if you'd like Apple to change their polices. (Though they may some day - they've changed and relaxed many things over the years.) The point is that someone told Apple they had all legal permissions required to allow Apple to distribute it the way they do, and since there was an actual legal contract involved, Apple trusted that person. That person was apparently mistaken. It is that person whom the FSF and/or the VLC dev should be angry about - not Apple. (At least in this case.)

Yes, Apple's policies are calculated. That doesn't make them evil nor does it make them necessarily wrong. It sounds to me like you want your (GPL, etc) rules to trump Apple's rules. What gives you that right? The App Store is huge, popular, and everyone wants a piece of it. Apple created that success for themselves. You (or anyone else) has no basis to rush in and claim they deserve their own little slice of it just because. You play by Apple's rules until Apple changes their rules or don't play at all. Don't like it? Go somewhere else - that's your right which is given in exchange for Apple having the right to make their own rules.

random42• 16 years ago

You dont base your principles and stands on winning or losing, you base them on what is the right thing to do.

protomyth• 16 years ago

Someone who submitted the app agreed that Apple's terms were fine and the developer could legally distribute the software in the manner the app store does. It probably would have been better not to submit it at all.

jsz0• 16 years ago

The GPL gives Apple permission to distribute this software through the App Store. All they would have to do is follow the license's conditions to help keep the software free.

vs.

"Apple gives developers the ability to distribute this software through the AppStore. All they would have to do is follow the EULA's conditions to help keep the software free"

Reminds me of the US political system. Opposing philosophical views but the they're both using the same tactics. Follow our rules because we know what's best for you.

jonhendry9• 16 years ago

Because Apple has nothing better to do than to deal with developers submitting apps with all kinds of idiosyncratic hoops for Apple to jump through.

"Oh, you can distribute this, as long as you do x, y, and z to be in compliance with the GPL license." "Oh, you can distribute this, as long as you put the app icon on theh apple.com front page." "Oh, you can distribute this, as long as you send Richard Stallman a signed glossy photo of Steve Jobs." "Oh, you can distribute my app, Apple just has to distribute my source code on the Lion install disk."

jjs2• 16 years ago

> Because Apple has nothing better to do than to deal with developers submitting apps with all kinds of idiosyncratic hoops for Apple to jump through.

And how would those nasty developers like it if Apple suddenly introduced all kinds of idiosyncratic hoops to the app submission process for the developers to jump through?

Why, they'd have no grounds to complain, that's for sure!

JohnTHaller4• 16 years ago

The GPL is the most widely used software license in the world, so you know Apple is familiar with it. If they chose to create rules in their app store that are incompatible with it, it would be hard to argue that they did so without being familiar with the GPL and how the rules are incompatible.

OpieCunningham3• 16 years ago

There appears to be a consensus forming within the VLC dev community that Apple does, in fact, enable 3rd party licensing such as GPLv2 to supersede the AppStore EULA.

http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-October...

Ultimately, this appears to be an unfortunate situation at Videolan as the method this all came out was probably not ideal (minimal or zero internal discussion prior to an individual contributor sending a copyright violation notice to Apple, posting to a videolan.org server announcing the notice with little or no indication of the notice not being directed by videolan.org, etc.).

The concerns I've seen re: PR on this mess shouldn't be taken lightly. One of my first reactions before digging in further was: so Videolan submitted their app, got it approved and now they're yelling at Apple about copyrights because it was approved? Clearly, that is not even close to the situation, but try and tell that to the thousands of headline skimmers.

jonhendry9• 16 years ago

That mailing list issue only covers the user terms, ie the terms applying to the person who downloads an app via the App Store.

The more relevant terms are those applying to the submission of applications to the App Store. Like, the part where you agree not to submit an app that can't be distributed under the terms of the App Store.

patrickaljord2• 16 years ago

I saw that coming the very day VLC was approved on the AppStore, looks like I was right:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1709912

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1710045

Xuzz• 16 years ago

So, where else does the FSF suggest we get our apps if we are supposed to avoid the App Store?

tjr• 16 years ago

The FSF would not recommend using an iPhone at all, in its present state. They have instead recommended phones such as the FreeRunner: http://www.openmoko.com/freerunner.html

allertonm• 16 years ago

He's "taking a stand against Apple", but ISTM the real offender here is about the company that built an app with his code and submitted it to the store in breach of his license.

bryanlarsen2• 16 years ago

The point is that the developer wants developers to build apps with his code and distribute it. So he's complaining about the entity responsible for limiting distribution. He has no problem with the company that built the app.

Of course reading motives into people's heads is prone to error, but it's implied by his choice of the GPL...

microtonal3• 16 years ago

Maybe he has no problem with the company that built the application, but the company submitted the application to the App Store knowing that the App Store's conditions would violate the GPL.

You cannot force GPL down Apple's throat. It is their application store. If their terms are not compatible with your license, change your license or live with it. By picking the GPL you are excluding some distribution venues.

In the meanwhile, the VideoLAN project is still endorsing the iOS application on their website. So, they are sending copyright infringement notices, while at the same time encouraging people to buy it?

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-ios.html

tzs5• 16 years ago

"That's because we went through a similar enforcement action against Apple when we learned that a port of GNU Go (which is copyrighted by the FSF) was being distributed through the App Store. Unfortunately, Apple chose to make the issue go away by simply removing the software from the App Store".

The FSF told Apple that distributing a port of GNU Go on the Apple store violated the copyright of GNU Go. Apple stopped distributing it. It is pretty ridiculous of the FSF to say it is "unfortunate" that Apple chose to stop distributing it.

lambda5• 16 years ago

Of course it is unfortunate. Apple had two choices; stop distributing it, or distribute it in a way which complies with the license. The FSF would prefer the latter; they are disappointed when people choose the former. Telling people to stop distributing it because it is infringing copyright to do so is the stick, and the software distributed under the proper license is the carrot, to try and promote software freedom. The FSF would much rather have people be able to run GNU Go under the terms of the GPL, than not be able to run it at all.

Why do you think this is ridiculous?

alextgordon2• 16 years ago

If the FSF want Apple to take notice, they need to give them a reason to take notice. Appealing to Apple's sense of morality is optimistic at best.

demallien3• 16 years ago

I'm curious as to how you think that Apple could provide the source code to a 3rd-party application. Would you care to explain?

rwmj2• 16 years ago

Interesting you think Apple made the problem "go away". If I was distributing copies of The Hurt Locker from my website and someone took me to court, you can be pretty sure my problems wouldn't just "go away" if I took down the website.

jbk5• 16 years ago

As a major VLC developer, I have to say that the FSF is pushing bad faith and FUD.

The matter is way more complex, and it seems that the latest Apple Store terms are indeed compatible with the GPLv2 if you use a few precautions.

See http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html#APPS "LICENSE OF APP STORE PRODUCTS" part

"You agree that the terms of the Licensed Application End User License Agreement will apply to each Apple Product and to each Third-Party Product that you license through the App Store Service, unless the App Store Product is covered by a valid end user license agreement entered into between you and the licensor of the App Store Product (the “Licensor”), in which case the Licensor’s end user license agreement will apply to that App Store Product."

Read the unless part...

Oh, of course, it is better to make a political statement that doesn't even read the AppStore terms... Not to mention that VLC is GPLv2 not GPLv3...

jonhendry9• 16 years ago

That's the end user license. What's relevant is the app store developer agreement, and what app submitters agree to.

jbk5• 16 years ago

App submitter and developer agreement signing person are not related to the VideoLAN project.

The problem the FSF is rising is about users rights, nothing else... I don't see your point, I am afraid.

tzs5• 16 years ago

It's the end user license that the FSF says is the problem.

tzs5• 16 years ago

The FSF addressed that back when GNU Go was the program getting pulled. They pointed to the section in the terms that said this:

  The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect
  to the Products, in addition to any other terms or
  rules that may have been established between you
  and another party.

They noted that it said it was in addition to any other terms between you and another party, and so the Usage Rules still applied EVEN IF the license of a particular program said otherwise.

However, looking at the latest version of the rules you cited (which is the same link the FSF cited), I don't see that language. The FSF published their more detailed explanation of the GNU Go problem, including the above explanation of why the Usage Rules still apply, on May 26th, and Apple updated the terms on June 21st.

On first glance, it appears that Apple may have in fact addressed the problem and GPL software is OK on the store after all.

jbk5• 16 years ago

> On first glance, it appears that Apple may have in fact addressed the problem and GPL software is OK on the store after all.

This is also my analysis

srart• 16 years ago

The real question is how did Apple's QA that checks apps for the store not catch the problem beforehand? VLC is easy to Google, and GPL 2 license isn't tricky to find. I'm sure Apple has plenty of lawyers and computer people that are involved in checking licenses, so they should have either an argument stating why they believe they are in compliance, or they shouldn't have let the app in.

jbk5• 16 years ago

http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Novembe... is a longer analysis

CrLf• 16 years ago

I'm not familliar with the AppStore's terms, but VLC is licensed under the GPLv2. This means that the distribution of a derived work must be accompanied by a copy of the license text, and a reference to a place where the recipient (the user) can download the source code.

If the app submitted to the AppStore does both of these things, I don't see any violation.

Of course, you can't just change the source code and then run the modified app on your iPhone, but you can't do that for a Linux-based router either.

I'm not sure what's the problem here, really.

StavrosK6• 16 years ago

It's very unfortunate that some devs spent much of their time porting vlc on iOS so it could be yanked by another dev kicking up a fuss over a technicality, in my opinion...

I hate apple's fascism as much as the next guy, but I don't see how the app store practically violates the GPL. Is it because it has no "download source" button? You can get it easily enough at the dev's site...

octover• 16 years ago

There may be other complexities to it, but I never thought the GPL v2 explicitly forbad DRM signed apps. Also it was my understanding that providing the source could be a URL, which is the easiest for everyone involved, but you could also provide it upon request by mailing a CDR and still be compliant. The GPL does not require that the source be included with the distribution of the program, just that the source is available to anyone who gets the compiled program.

StavrosK6• 16 years ago

I think so too, but I'm not sure.

JohnTHaller4• 16 years ago

For the confused:

* VLC for iOS was ported by a 3rd party, not by the VLC developers

* VLC and most included libraries are licensed under GPLv2 which has specific requirements around redistribution and rights of users/developers

* Apple's app store policies are in violation of the terms outlined in GPLv3 (see: anti-Tivoization clauses) so software with any GPLv3 components can not be released in the app store

* Apple's app store policies also used to (and may still) be in violation of the terms outlined in GPLv2 so software with any GPLv2 components can not be released in the app store. The FSF did an analysis of the older App Store rules and determined that they were incompatible with v2 and v3 licensed code. They have not re-examined the new policy but some developers believe it is still incompatible with v2 as well as v3.

* The code in VLC itself is not owned by a VLC organization. Like most GPL projects, it is owned by the individual contributors.

* Rémi Denis-Courmont has written code that is included in VLC and is used in the iOS port and believes this was done in violation of GPLv2 (and, thus, copyright law). Some other VLC developers agree with him.

* Some VLC developers disagree with Rémi's interpretation

* Some VLC members have been accused of trying to censor Rémi's posts on the topic by removing his RSS feed from the VLC meta-feed

* For those unfamiliar with the details and goals of the GPL, Wikipedia is a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

Anything missing?

microtonal3• 16 years ago

VLC endorses the iOS application in the App Store (at the time of linking): http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-ios.html

JohnTHaller4• 16 years ago

It would be more accurate to state that "the VLC website maintainers have linked to it". It is disingenuous to say VLC "approves" of it as some developers, including Rémi Denis-Courmont, do not and see it as a GPL and copyright violation. Remember, Rémi is one of the core developers (and the top contributor to VLC according to Ohloh's stats: https://www.ohloh.net/p/vlc/contributors ), so saying 'VLC approves of the iOS port' is just incorrect.

VLC developer takes a stand against DRM enforcement in Apple's App Store

Related Stories