

VLC developer takes a stand against DRM enforcement in Apple's App Store  - tjr
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/vlc-enforcement

======
jbk
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...

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

~~~
jbk
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.

~~~
jonhendry
The submitter agreed for the app to be distributed in the App Store way, as is
pretty well understood at this point.

If the FSF has a problem, they should take it up with the app's submitter, not
Apple.

Did VideoLan _misrepresent_ the app _to Apple_ as being compatible with the
App Store? That's the crux of the matter.

~~~
jbk
VideoLAN did not submit any application. A company named Applidium did.

~~~
jonhendry
Then it's Applidium's problem.

------
tzs
"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.

~~~
lambda
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?

~~~
demallien
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?

~~~
tzs
The problem isn't lack of source. Most GPL programs that have appeared on the
App Store have included a way to get the source satisfactory for GPL purposes.

The problem is with the terms of use of the store. When an end user tries to
use the store, the end user has to agree to certain terms, including that they
will not reverse engineer anything they download, they will not copy it, and
other terms of that kind.

When a developer offers his program through the store, he provides a copy to
Apple. When an end user purchases the program, _Apple_ makes a copy and
provides it to the user. Hence, from a copyright point of view, Apple is
making and distributing copies of the program, and so Apple needs permission
of the copyright owner.

If the program is GPL, Apple has to obey GPL to get that permission. GPL
prohibits imposing additional restrictions on the GPL code you distribute.
Apple's end user terms of service are additional terms.

Hence, it is not possible to distribute GPL code through the Apple store
unless you grant Apple an exception allowing them to impose their additional
terms. If it is the copyright owner who is making the app, that is not a
problem. However, if they use anyone else's GPL code, and that third party
coder has not granted Apple an exception, then the app cannot be distributed
via the store.

------
tragiclos
_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.

~~~
lambda
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.

~~~
Locke1689
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.

~~~
rwmj
The GPL doesn't say anything at all about what the end user can do. In fact
that's "rule 0":

<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>

The restrictions are on _distributing_ the software which is quite different
from use of the software.

~~~
Locke1689
Distributing software is something you "do" with the software. If I meant
restricting the use of the software I would have said restricting the use of
the software.

~~~
lambda
The GPL doesn't restrict distributing software. Copyright does; without the
GPL, you would not be allowed to copy the software at all, due to copyright
laws that cover all creative works from the moment they are created,
regardless of whether anyone opts in. The GPL grants you additional freedom to
distribute the software, as long as you follow their rules.

Now, it doesn't grant as much additional freedom as, say, the MIT license, but
the only freedoms it fails to grant you are the freedom to take someone else's
freedom away. You can do anything you want with the software, as long as you
don't do something that limits someone else's freedom to do the same.

------
BigZaphod
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.

~~~
lambda
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.

~~~
BigZaphod
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.

~~~
lambda
No, it is Apple you should be upset at. They're the ones who set up the store
which requires everything to be distributed under their EULA, and they're the
ones who don't allow you to install any software in any other way.

If you take away one of those restrictions, great! If the App Store isn't the
only way of getting software onto my own hardware, then they can have whatever
policies they want; I can just get the software from elsewhere (see, for
instance, Android). Or, if they actually abided by the terms of any free
software licenses for software they distributed, well, less fine (I still
would like to be able to get my software from elsewhere), but they're at least
complying with the terms of those licenses.

So yes, it's disappointing that someone clicked "agree" to something they
couldn't legally agree to, because it violated the terms under which they were
distributing free software. But Apple is the one here who is significantly
restricting end-user freedom; and the point of this sort of enforcement of the
GPL is to get the point across that free software developer will not let Apple
benefit from being able to distribute said free software without complying
with the terms of the license.

Apple benefits from having a better selection of software in the App Store; if
I can play my videos on an Android phone, but not an iPhone, that might help
me decide in favor of Android. They shouldn't be able to benefit from this
without complying with the terms of the license. There are several free
software packages (like VLC, GNU Go, and more) that they could benefit from,
but should not be able to until they stop restricting end user freedom.

I am not trying to get "my" rules to trump Apples. I am trying to say that if
Apple wants to benefit from my work, then they must play by my rules. I don't
use or develop for iPhone for just this reason; because Apple isn't willing to
play by a set of rules that I agree with. I have an Android phone; while it
isn't perfect in respecting end-user freedom (it doesn't come with root, and
rooting it voids your warranty), it is a heck of a lot better (I also use a
Mac, for instance, which while much of the software is not free, Apple does
not restrict what software I can an cannot run on my own machine, which I
consider an acceptable compromise).

------
allertonm
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.

~~~
bryanlarsen
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...

~~~
danieldk
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>

~~~
bryanlarsen
_or live with it_.

Which is exactly what he's doing. He could have let the original infringement
slip quietly by, but instead he's using it to make a political point.
Everybody loses short term, but he's hoping for long term gains.

------
protomyth
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.

------
StavrosK
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
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.

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

------
JohnTHaller
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?

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

~~~
JohnTHaller
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.

~~~
danieldk
I know that in an open source project there are individual opinions. But you
would think that if something is listed on the website, it is trustable
information, provided by the project. If not, what is the project's official
source of information?

~~~
JohnTHaller
The opinion of the operator of the website is not necessarily representative
of the developers. And the project leaders don't own the copyright to Remi's
thousands of contributions, so they can't choose to re-license it or give
Apple permission to release the app under any additional licensing or
obligations above and beyond the exact stipulations of the GPL.

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

~~~
tjr
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>

------
CrLf
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.

------
patrickaljord
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>

------
jsz0
_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.

~~~
jonhendry
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."

~~~
jjs
> _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!

~~~
jonhendry
It's Apple's store, they get to set the rules for their store. I have no
problem with that. I may grumble at the rules they choose, but I'm not going
to cry about it.

Little developers don't have much leverage. That's life. BFD. In the grand
scheme of things, it's not a big deal. If the worst thing that happens in your
life this year is that your app falls afoul of some persnickety little Apple
rule, you're still living better than the vast majority of the humans on the
planet who would LOVE to be so afflicted.

~~~
jjs
> _It's Apple's store, they get to set the rules for their store. I have no
> problem with that. I may grumble at the rules they choose, but I'm not going
> to cry about it._

Conversely, a GPL'd program is the author's work, and if some other developer
submits it to the app store, the author is perfectly within his rights to
waste Apple's time and demand either GPL compliance or removal.

> _Little developers don't have much leverage._

Except when they do; such as when Alice submits Bob's GPL'd program to the App
Store. If Bob cares more about enforcing his rights than having his program in
Apple's virtual toy store, he's got plenty of leverage.

And if Apple has to spend time and money taking down apps as a cost of
maintaining its own bizarre and finicky rules (which cost 3rd-party developers
plenty of time and money), then it's _exactly_ what Apple deserves. Poetic
justice, even.

> _That's life. BFD. In the grand scheme of things, it's not a big deal._

In the grand scheme of things, humans are a tiny dot in an infinite cosmos. In
the _human_ scheme of things, it may matter a great deal whether we end up
with neutered app dongles instead of _real computers_ in our pockets.

> _If the worst thing that happens in your life this year is that your app
> falls afoul of some persnickety little Apple rule, you're still living
> better than the vast majority of the humans on the planet who would LOVE to
> be so afflicted._

There are (at least!) two fallacies in your argument: Apple's bad behavior is
justified (1) because there are worse things; (2) because the harm it does to
anyone is not sufficient to reduce them to desperate, third-world, dollar-a-
day, tapeworms,-warlords,-and-cholera-level poverty.

I maintain that Apple's behavior is _not_ justified, and I choose to forgo
their iOS platform and its attendant riches. So far, I've been able to subsist
on more than a dollar a day, cholera-free!

