

VLC Developer Takes a Stand Against DRM Enforcement  - st3fan
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/10/31/1351243

======
chadp
This is a better article on the matter.
<http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/vlc-enforcement/>

Thanks for taking a stand, but isn't it a given that apple owns and controls
the app store. If one doesn't like the rules, don't buy apple and don't make
apps for their store. Simple no?

~~~
tzs
That link cites the FSF's earlier analysis of the GNU Go case. About one month
after the FSF published that and called for Apple to change their rules, Apple
changed their rules. The current terms of service appear to eliminate the
problem the FSF complained about.

One VLC developer says that it is fine under the current TOS to distribute VLC
on the App Store: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1850340>

~~~
uxp
If I'm not mistaken, VideoLAN never built a version of VLC for iOS devices,
but another developer did. Apple has already changed their Licensing
restrictions to comply with software such as VLC, as you said.

This sounds like a giant mess of FUD and clever trolling. The FSF is
complaining about something that both Apple and VideoLAN had no part of, but
that's who they can point fingers at. Why isn't anyone complaining about
Applidium, who were the ones that coerced VLC into the app store, which
effectively "changed the licensing terms" of a project who's licence says that
it cannot be re-licensed?

edit: the above paragraph is referring to the mess that the FSF article is
claiming to be an issue, not the fact that VLC's licence can comply with the
terms of the app store.

In all reality, Apple wants every piece of quality[1] software on the planet
to be distributed through their store, even if it is free and can be obtained
elsewhere. The GPL/FSF guys seem to be more restrictive about where their
software can and cannot be released than Apple is restrictive on what kind of
software can be included in their store at this point. It is making everyone
look bad. Can't we just get along?

[1] Ambiguous term, I know.

------
jbk
Flame title, reporting a misleading text of the FSF, that is not only wrong,
but also FUD.

See <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1850340>

------
DannoHung
I'm confused about something: isn't the issue really that there is no escape
hatch on the iPad? That, even if Apple distributed the software without
encryption, because you couldn't put it on to the device without the $99 Dev
account the distribution of the application would not comply?

You know, I actually wonder how that application of the GPL would stand up in
court. The courts have sided with hardware hackers about Jailbreaking. Would
they necessarily accept that a license term would enforce the end of
distribution of software just because an individual's hardware wouldn't load
someone else's copy of the software?

------
adulau
You can replace web browser by a video player like VLC :

'''The approved commitments address these concerns. PC users, by means of the
Choice Screen, will have an effective and unbiased choice between Internet
Explorer and competing web browsers. This should ensure competition on the
merits and allow consumers to benefit from technical developments and
innovation both on the web browser market and on related markets, such as web-
based applications.'''

This was the accepted proposal of Microsoft by the European Commission in
December 2009.
([http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/0...](http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1941))

Apple with the AppStore is just playing the same game than any other monopole,
trying to exclude competitive products.

~~~
terrywilcox
How is Apple excluding competitive products? VLC is in the App Store. Apple
isn't excluding it at all. Apple's not doing the complaining.

