
VLC for iOS Pulled from the App Store - sathyabhat
http://planet.videolan.org/
======
jbk
Disclaimer: VideoLAN Chairman and lead VLC developer here.

I've written the most important analysis on the matter
[http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-
devel/2010-Novembe...](http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-
devel/2010-November/077457.html) and
[http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-
devel/2010-Decembe...](http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-
devel/2010-December/078262.html)

Some VLC developers (for Mac mainly), with the company Applidium, have ported
VLC on iOS. Applidium published it on the store, for free.

Some developer complained (quite lately, btw...) afterwards and quoted a FSF
analysis. Their analysis was totally wrong (spoke about redistribution), and
based on old version of AppStore terms.

After my remarks about changes of the AppStore terms that made this analysis
obsolete and wrong, they shifted their criticism onto another part, which was
the "usage" part of the ToS. They complained that the terms did not allow all
uses, especially commercial ones.

Indeed, one part could be interpreted in different ways. Therefore, I've
mailed Apple Copyright Agent for explanation, twice. Once in November, once in
December...

Apple has refused to answer, to explain or to help in any matter. They then
decided to pull the Application unilaterally from the AppStore.

Of course, they are allowed to do that, and noone can complain, but this is
yet another push from Apple against VLC, that adds to the very long list of
past issues. It just makes me think Apple doesn't really want competition...

~~~
alain94040
Apple doesn't have to spend their time discussing with you about legal dispute
among copyright holders. If anything, you are lucky that they don't ban the
developers who posted the app in the first place. I wouldn't mind a policy
that said: "if you ever get us in a copyright dispute, you are banned forever
from our store"

Instead, Apple was told that the app had a copyright problem, and it took them
2 months to take it down. Yes, it's slow, but no, they are not evil in doing
so.

~~~
jarek
> "if you ever get us in a copyright dispute, you are banned forever from our
> store"

Hey! Angry Birds stole my intellectual property.

~~~
mambodog
Maybe the word _legitimate_ should have been in there.

~~~
danieldon
That would conflict with "Apple doesn't have to spend their time discussing
with you about legal dispute among copyright holders."

------
sanxiyn
It seems that this is the best analysis for now.
[http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-
devel/2010-Novembe...](http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-
devel/2010-November/077457.html)

Apple changed App Store terms. Previously:

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

Now:

...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

So either GPLv2 is a valid end user license agreement, or if it isn't, one
just needs some out-of-bound mechanism that users and developers agree on
GPLv2.

~~~
jbk
Well, you have missed my update here:
[http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-
devel/2010-Decembe...](http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-
devel/2010-December/078262.html)

------
jarin
I hate to say it, but this is why I have a big problem with the GPL.

Not for infrastructure software like operating systems, web servers, and
databases (where I think it is appropriate and beneficial), but for code
intended for use in end-user applications (including web applications).

I think licenses like BSD, MIT, and Apache spur more innovation in those
cases. You can make the argument that companies have no incentive to
contribute back to open source projects without copyleft licenses, but
projects like Webkit and Rails have proven otherwise.

~~~
quadhome
Aren't large portions of Webkit under the LGPL?

Though, perhaps the differences in innovation in the BSD kernels vs. Linux is
demonstrative?

~~~
jarin
The LGPL is _much_ different than the GPL.

~~~
quadhome
The LGPL is copyleft too. The comment was about copyleft licenses.

~~~
jarin
The LGPL is copyleft in the sense that making changes to a library that uses
LGPL copies the license; software that links to that library is free to have
whatever license the developers choose. I have no problem with that.

~~~
quadhome
You said that Webkit didn't have a license that required contribution back and
used it as an example to highlight the difference in innovation. But, it
_does_. So, it's not a good example for your argument. That was all I was
pointing out.

What is it about infrastructural applications that makes copyleft licenses
more appropriate (and visa-versa)? That is, what makes them spur innovation in
the infrastructural roles and hinder it in end-user roles?

~~~
jarin
With open-source infrastructure software like web servers and databases, the
software is not a product. There's no disadvantage to being forced to publish
your modifications, and the license does not infect your end-user software
that runs on them (the actual products).

The problem with the GPL in regards to user-facing software is that a
developer using GPLed libraries is forced to publish ALL of his source code,
even when he has not made any modifications to the library itself. In this
situation there are no advantages for the developer (and serious
disadvantages, even if you're not trying to sell the software for a profit but
just want to maintain your rights to the source code), and there are also no
advantages for the library project itself.

This is why, for example, the core engine of MongoDB is GPL licensed, but the
MongoDB drivers are Apache licensed. If the drivers were also GPL licensed,
developers would likely just choose to use one of the many alternatives with
more palatable licenses.

~~~
quadhome
So, you're saying that for an end-user developer, it's "appropriate and
beneficial" for their infrastructural components to be GPL. But, it's not for
components that directly link to their end-user product, because it forces
their product to be GPL?

What about web servers and databases that are sold as products? Why does that
same argument not apply for them?

And, what about the users themselves? The GPL guarantees that everyone
downstream (not just the next developer) gains the advantages of having the
source be open. The hypothetical library project that licensed under the GPL
_does_ gain an advantage because they have access to the source for software
that uses their code.

I definitely agree that MIT/BSD/Apache/etc. licenses give developers more
options wrt. licensing and distribution. But, I don't see how that necessarily
encourages innovation. Nor, do I see how that innovation is encouraged only in
the case of end-user software vs. more infrastructural software.

~~~
jarin
I don't see a problem with people selling infrastructure software
commercially. It's well within their rights to make money off of their work.
Just as developers who release open source code under a non-GPL license are
asserting that they don't mind if someone expands on their work and makes a
few bucks off of it. To me, that seems much more "free" and egalitarian. I
mean, if I was _really_ concerned about it I'd just require attribution. Fair
enough.

I think that GPL vs. non-GPL in end-user software is just a difference in
philosophy. I feel that it should be up to developers whether they want to
open source their modifications or not. It seems that the majority of
developers do publish and contribute back any modifications that are
beneficial to the original project, but I don't think they should be forced to
also publish the modifications that are only of any benefit to the modifier.

~~~
quadhome
There are two cases that we're addressing:

1\. A developer writes an end-user application, but doesn't want to free their
software. Clearly, this person isn't going to use GPL libraries.

2\. A developer modifies an end-user application licensed under the GPL. If a
developer makes a modification and then _distributes_ that modification, then
clearly it was of use to someone outside of that developer. The GPL guarantees
that every person who uses that modified software gets the source.

But why is it good for an infrastructure product to be free, where it's bad
for the end-user product?

Or, is this as simple as the fact that most free infrastructural products
don't require the end-user product to be free. So, it's "appropriate and
beneficial" for them to be free. But, most free libraries _do_ require the
end-user product to be free, so it's bad for the developer who may or may not
want to make their product free. If I've accurately summarized, then at what
point where does that "appropriate and beneficial" aspect disappear?

------
oslic
So is this what GPL developers consider a "win?" The GPL seems designed to
create something for developers to fuss about. The net effect is pretty stupid
compared to BSD/MIT/Apache. It's been long ago proved that the community deals
fairly with contributions of any kind. The only difference then with GPL is
that it locks out many legitimate uses (businesses) that might have otherwise
been available. That's not "free," that's "restrictive," no matter how many
times Stallman bangs his drum.

~~~
voxcogitatio
No this is what a GPL developer considers a "loss". Specifically, yet another
demonstration of why developing for someone else's walled garden is a bad
idea.

------
ryanpetrich
Now up in Cydia on my repo: <http://rpetri.ch/repo>

Adjusted source to allow installation to /Applications is here:
<http://rpetri.ch/github/MobileVLC>

~~~
jbk
Nice!

Could you submit patches that make sense for upstream?

------
gaiusparx
According to TUAW [http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-
stor...](http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-store/), its
one Rémi Denis-Courmont employed under Nokia who waged the campaign. How true
is it? Sounds more like a corporate conspiracy than a fight for principle.

~~~
martythemaniak
What a bunch of ugly, hateful people. VLC developers devote thousands of hours
of their own free time so users can have a FREE kick-ass piece of software,
and what they get in return is being called "freetard", "prick" and "asshole",
just because Apple refuses to honour their license.

I thought my opinion of Apple fanboys was pretty low already, but it seems
it's got much further down to go.

------
mbenjaminsmith
How does this work for people who've downloaded it? I've got the better part
of Family Guy's run on my iPhone playing with VLC. That combo has brought me
more enjoyment than all of my other apps combined.

On a side note: I recently made the difficult decision of creating a library
from scratch since the only one available was GPL. I guess that was the
correct decision after all?

~~~
paxswill
Going off of what has happened in the past, you can keep using that copy you
downloaded (and the use the copy on your computer to load it onto more
devices) as long as you want. It's just not sold anymore.

~~~
StavrosK
You'll also probably be able to get it from other sources if you're
jailbroken.

------
schrototo
So how does this in any way enhance the freedom of users?

~~~
raganwald
It's always a question of what the license authors believe is the _overall_
freedom for users. Let's imagine I concoct a brand new license called "NoDRM."
My license allows you to distribute copies of the software, modify it, charge
for it, do whatever you like provided that you do not add any kind of DRM to
it.

I distribute Wood and Stones with the NoDRM license:

<https://github.com/raganwald/wood_and_stones>

Now somebody creates a new platform, let's say it's a watch that runs games.
It has DRM built into everything it runs. It has a DRM-Store that allows free-
as-in-beer apps. It is wildly successful, millions of people have these
watches and everyone wants to play Go on them.

So: These millions of users want the "freedom" to run my app with DRM. I
believe on principle that the world is more free if authors like me take a
stance against DRM, which by definition limits freedom to every user
downloading my game.

You can debate which position enhances freedom, but I think it's reasonable to
agree that the author of a NoDRM license and the person choosing a NoDRM
license believe they are enhancing freedom even as they deny users the right
to use their app with DRM on it.

Personally, what I believe is that _free software licenses--like the
fictitious NoDRM--ensure that users are free to choose free alternatives_.
Most users won't make that choice, but then again most people aren't self-
employed either. Nevertheless, our respective societies are considered free
because self-employment is an option, and software is free if free software is
an option.

~~~
oslic
You twist the word "freedom" just like Stallman. The influence of the open
source software movement has always been negligible. The net effect is that we
lose all of the protesters' work (substantial), and the protesters don't
change anything. The Apple App Store isn't going to change policy because you
withheld "Wood & Stones," but some Go enthusiast is the worse.

It's like an autoworker who wants everybody to unionize, and so he organizes
sit-ins, but instead of ever forming the union that one guy just sits around
all the time not working, ticking everybody else off.

~~~
raganwald
What do you mean by _we lose all of the protestors_? If I don't want my
software encumbered by DRM, I don't want my software encumbered by DRM. Do I
belong to you? Does my software belong to you? How is it you "lose" me or my
software? If you want it, here are my conditions.

I don't owe "some Go enthusiast" anything. They are not the worse off for
anything, I didn't give them something and take it away. In fact, what I did
was say, "If you choose to use a platform without DRM, you can get this thing
I wrote for free." But hey, if that doesn't float the Go enthusiast's boat, he
sticks with DRM. It's his choice, I am not stopping him from doing anything.

Arguing that I have some moral obligation to write software for proprietary
distribution is like arguing that I ought to write Windows software because
more people can use it. Which leads to arguing that I ought to stop writing
programming tools and start writing games.

You and the Go enthusiast are free to choose free software or proprietary
software, or nearly free software, do what you like. Better still, _you're
free to write your own software from scratch and stop whining about what other
developers choose to do with the fruit of their labours_.

How much more freedom do you want? And where do you think the freedom to write
software without kowtowing to a corporation came from? Free software, that's
where.

And no, I'm not like an auto worker sitting all the time not working, and
neither is anybody else who writes free software. Does this look like not
working to you?

<http://github.com/raganwald/>

I'm working, it's just that I choose what I work on, and under what conditions
it may be distributed.

A better comparison would be that someone writing free software is like a
hippie who grows his own coffee beans and sells them at the side of the road
by his farm. You can't buy them at Tim Horton's or Dunkin Doughnuts because
the hippie doesn't like what the big chains do with the coffee.

So you go to the hippie or you don't drink the coffee he grows. The problem is
that you bought yourself a shiny espresso machine that only takes pods
distributed by the manufacturer. So even if you buy the hippie's beans, you
can't make yourself any coffee with them because the machine won't take them
unless they've been shipped to the manufacturer and packaged into little
special pellets.

How is this the hippie's fault for not liking big coffee chains or espresso
machines? You can drink plenty of coffee, and you can buy a plot of land and
grow your own coffee to be distributed by the espresso machine maker. You can
buy a different kind of espresso maker that takes ground beans directly.

The hippie is free and you are free. The hippie hasn't shut down the big
chains, but that isn't his goal. His goal is to sleep at night, comfortable
that he has made choices compatible with his personal beliefs and that he has
given other people the freedom to make choice compatible with their personal
beliefs.

I can think of no greater definition of freedom.

------
kranner
Will someone please summarize? The link makes only a vague statement about
incompatibility between GPL code and the App Store...

~~~
sanxiyn
FSF said it best: [http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-
store-...](http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-
enforcement)

~~~
biot
So if someone wanted to be an asshole, they could send takedown notices for
Pixie Scheme III (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2059242>) as well as
all other apps that are under GPL and Apple would no doubt follow the same
approach and take them away?

Seems like a good way for closed source apps to remove their open source
competition.

~~~
abrahamsen
"Someone" needs to be the legal owner of the GPL'ed code in question for the
takedown notice to have any legal meaning.

~~~
jonhendry
But that could be a tiny portion of the code overall.

One developer with a grudge can cause a problem, even if that developer has a
tenuous connection to the project.

------
sanxiyn
Of course this is App Store's problem, and VLC for iOS should be no problem to
install from Cydia.

~~~
Xuzz
(If any VLC developers happen to read this, I'm happy to help you package it
up for submission to Cydia.)

~~~
jbk
Please do so...

Just remember to name it "VLC" or "VLC media player" and not "VLC Media
Player"

~~~
etherealG
mind clarifying please? why would this be important?

~~~
TheCoreh
Maybe "Media Player" is a trademark of someone? Maybe they already had
problems with that before.

------
sanxiyn
Battle for Wesnoth had the same problem: <http://lwn.net/Articles/396535/>

------
st3fan
Looks like Rémi Denis-Courmont pulled his blog and his resume. What is going
on there? His posting is aggregated on planet vlc, but it does not link to the
original.

~~~
w1ntermute
Managed to pull it through the Google Cache into Google Docs, from which I was
able to obtain the original PDF:

<http://ompldr.org/vNndvaA/CV.pdf>

<http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3232537/docs/CV.pdf>

What I'm guessing is of interest:

Email: remi@remlab.net

Ph. #: (+358) 50 487 6315

------
kevinchen
So Rémi Denis-Courmont is basically putting his open software principles ahead
of the utility users would get on their iPhones. Very noble indeed...

~~~
zmmmmm
One might equally say that Apple is putting their App Store principles and
desire to control their products ahead of the utility of their users. Very
noble indeed ...

~~~
halostatue
Apple isn't trying to claim a moral high ground here.

------
sdizdar
I would like to understand something here. As far as I was explained by
experts (I'm not a lawyer) GPL license does not allow to publish software on
closed / proprietary platforms controlled by ToS similar to Apple AppStore. My
understanding it is not that VLC on iOS is breaking AppStore ToS but GPL
license which is very restrictive when you release something based on it but
it is not open sourced.

Am I wrong here?

------
adaml_623
I don't have an iPhone because of this walled garden approach to software on
it. I'm glad that this has happened as maybe there will be fewer walled garden
type situations in the future. It is a pity for users who miss out on VLC but
they've made a choice by buying a product that's locked to a single
marketplace for apps and they have to live with that.

------
mikecane
Putting aside all the issues involved here, what I don't understand to begin
with is why any other iOS dev has not done an app that can play back the kind
of AVI files most people have in their collections to begin with. Is it that
hard? Or did devs shy away from it because they never expected Apple to
approve such an app? Now that Apple has, will someone else come in with
something else? This is a capability that's truly needed. There's just no way
I'm going to ever convert my AVIs to MP4s. It'd be faster and cheaper just to
get an Archos Android tablet to play those videos. (Note I mention Archos
specifically because for years they've developed that capability and have
ported that native software to now run under Android.)

------
ryan-allen
This is very disappointing. VLC is a great product and so are the iPhone and
iPad devices. Not having to convert video and being able to play them on the
devices was very welcome!

It's such a shame... This to me has a similar kind of feel to patent trolling.

~~~
jbk
We'll work to get it back there...

------
adulau
If you are curious about the differences of terms in the iTunes store policy
and what has been introduced by the "Mac App Store":

[http://www.goodiff.org/changeset/597/apple/www.apple.com/leg...](http://www.goodiff.org/changeset/597/apple/www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html)

------
yason
Why isn't there a third-party app store, by the way? iPhone only runs
executables signed by Apple? I suppose that on Android, if Google's Android
market sucks anyone can create a new market that ranks the applications better
or simply lures in better apps?

~~~
mike-cardwell
On Android you'd be able to just put your app on your website and let people
download it. Or email it to them as an attachment. Or any of the other
traditional ways of distributing applications.

~~~
Argorak
Mind that this is only true for vanilla Android, not for all Android phones.

~~~
mike-cardwell
I didn't realise that. I thought that they all allowed apps to be installed
from outside the market. How common is this restriction?

~~~
CrazedGeek
All AT&T phones have the restriction, as well as most Android ebook readers.

------
drivebyacct2
"This end should not have come to a surprise to anyone."

Also, is it terribly selfish of me to find this enjoyable partly because of
the App Store apologists and partly because it means there will be more focus
on VLC for Android?

~~~
melito
The VLC iOS app was developed by a company in France named Applidium, not the
core VLC dev team. Applidium develops iOS apps.

So no. This does not mean there will be more focus on VLC for Android.

If anything I think this is a bad thing for all software currently using the
GPL.

I understand the claim and ultimately it's the author's decision, but I feel
that using the GPL in this fashion is ironic at best and hypocritical at
worst.

~~~
mtvartia
What is ironic or hypocritical about it? There are general licenses which
provide more freedom to the users (including limiting freedom of others in
derivative works, which might be ironic in somebody's eyes), and this software
uses a license which prohibits limiting distribution related freedoms (among
others) because its authors wanted it that way. It is not ironic or
hypocritical, it is only being consistent with the choice. (Do you mean that
using GPL in the first place is ironic or hypocritical in some way?)

If you choose a license and don't follow it, what is the point of using that
license?

By using GPL, you deliberately give a piece of software a life of its own.
Because of the license, the action taken is not merely the author's decision,
but something anyone can do, even if the author didn't wish for it (although
it is only natural that the author is the first one to pursue compliance with
the license he chose.)

This is not a bad thing for GPL'ed software. Instead, it is exactly what is
(or at least should be) expected from using GPL. As said, there are also other
licenses to use. If your expectations are different, use different license and
don't submit to a license you find inadequate.

~~~
demallien
Well, ironic in the sense that the GPL is supposed to keep software free
(libre), but in this case, it really restricts the end user by not allowing
them even to load the app. You have to wonder who was being hurt by having GPL
software on the App Store - if you're an actual iPhone developer, then you can
most certainly download the source provided by Applidium under the GPL, and
build your own copy of the software. If you're a dev that works on other
platforms that uses the same GPL code, you can still download the code and use
it. If you're not a dev, then you couldn't care less about access to the code
or not, because as a non-dev, you can't use it. So just who's rights were
being trampled on by the code being on the App Store?

Remi's stance is not principled. Everyone that would want to have access to
the source had access to the source. He has done this because of some
idealogical dislike that he apparently has of the Apple ecosystem. Fine, it's
within his rights, but he doesn't get to claim that he was the principled one
in this incident, quite the contrary.

~~~
mtvartia
The users would be allowed to load the app, that is not the issue.

The distributor (Apple) is not allowed to impose further restrictions upon
GPL'ed software. Surely the users are ultimately the losers, but that is not
fault of the creators of the software, but of the distributor (Apple) who
likes to keep a stranglehold over its users.

A simple lift on the terms of usage for Apple's service would resolve the
issue trivially, even effortlessly. Why do not Apple's customers ask their
vendor why this can't be done?

Alternatively, if there was any other way to (trivially, e.g. without
jailbreaking) get the application into the device there would not be a problem
at all.

IMHO, the FOSS ecosystem built on GPL cannot tolerate and sustain violations
towards the license without eroding the meaning of the license. This is the
issue of principle, and that is why it makes perfectly sense to stick to the
license.

The true irony of the case is in that Apple's customers - even those who know
about such great products of the free software ecosystem as VLC - willingly
submit to the restrictions of Apple's platform and are surprised not to enjoy
the same freedom as those who choose otherwise.

Edit: It seems that the distribution issue has actually been resolved, and the
problem has shifted to other GPL-uncompliant restrictions, and ultimately to
Apple's own decision to withdraw the app, without discussion.

~~~
halostatue
There is a trivial way to get the application onto the device: pay the
$99/year fee to be a developer and re-sign a 'beta' version.

<http://www.hogbaysoftware.com/wiki/iOSDeveloperSelfSign>

The problem here is that someone has made the assumption that the GNU GPL is
permitted to impose restrictions on third parties or platform vendors. It
isn't.

What happened here is that someone didn't understand what the GNU GPL does and
does not do (and that includes the FSF, IMO) with respect to third-parties and
platform vendors.

~~~
mtvartia
With all respect, IMO paying 99 dollars a year, getting a developer license
and re-signing the application yourself is far from 'trivial'.

That aside, for me it is hard to see how Apple would not be the first-hand
distributor for apps in its app store, as it clearly wants to control all
distribution from the beginning to the end.

By loosening their stance on this (allowing easy installation of applications
by other means) they would position themselves quite differently.

~~~
halostatue
It's trivial. One used to have to pay thousands of dollars for a compiler. On
some platforms, you _still_ do, because gcc is substandard on the platform.

The GPL can't impose on third parties.

~~~
mtvartia
Is applying for a developer license from Apple really trivial? Is it not
possible for Apple to simply not grant the license if they, for example, wish
to deprecate a platform?

Do you have, or know a text that provides a proper explanation of 'GPL cannot
impose restrictions on third parties', as the license (v2 as in the subject)
clearly says:

6\. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program),
the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to
copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions.
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the
rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by
third parties to this License.

What counters the statement "You may not impose any further restrictions on
the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein"?

Edit: formatting of the cited paragraph.

~~~
halostatue
Apple is acting, more or less, as an FTP site plus an OS vendor in this case.
In theory, the GPL can put obligations on the FTP site as a distributor, but
it cannot out obligations on the OS vendor.

If this were the case, it would not be possible to ship ANY non-GPL-compatible
software on Debian, for example, even in a non-free environment.

The question comes down to what the distribution site does, and they have two
clauses: one for commercial and ne for non-commercial interests. They do not
seem to be in conflict to me.

~~~
mtvartia
(I can only wonder what in my comments has been inappropriate enough to
justify the downvotes. Simply disagreeing on a civilized opinion shouldn't
prompt censors to act.)

If a distribution site requires to accept a contract between the distributor
and the downloader regarding the usage of the downloaded programs, it is not
equal to an FTP site which merely puts programs available.

I don't understand how Apple's position as an OS vendor affects the situation,
if the question is about distribution. I would really enjoy a thorough
explanation about it, if there is one, since to me it does not make any sense.

If there is no conflict (any more) between Apple's terms of usage for
downloaded apps and GPL, then it all boils down to Apple's decision to remove
the application without reason (other than an invalidated claim of copyright
infringement). In that case, all the other GPL'ed software could be returned
to distribution.

I can imagine that even Apple's own personnel has hard time following all the
changes in their own terms and their implications of cases like this, and
that's why it would be the best if Apple simply lifted the restrictions of
their platform.

------
jawee
This is one reason why I have _no_ desire to use Apple products and have
essentially retired my iOS device. This restricts a great library of possible
software from ever making it to my device and restricts the possibility of a
decent freedom that some developers wish to give. This would not be a big deal
if you could distribute software like on a normal computer (or most other
mobile OSs.. including Blackberry, Palm OS (historical at least), Android,
Windows Mobile (historical at least), Maemo, and so on). I shouldn't have to
worry about the official distribution channel's restrictions imposing on what
is essentially my computer as a whole.

~~~
st3fan
Uhhh it is not Apple that restricts software. It is the GPL.

~~~
chappi42
No, it is Apple's ToS and it is appropriate imho that GPL software cannot be
distributed through the iJail AppStore.

May people choose other less restricted platforms instead.

