After months of being available on the App Store, the VLC app formerly maintained by French developer Applidium has been pulled from the storefront due to the protestations of one Rémi Denis-Courmont, lead contributor to the VLC open-source multimedia player project.
Courmont started his crusade to pull the app from iTunes last October due to his complaints that Apple did not comply with the spirit and letter of the GPLv2 license that VLC is developed under.
Since the app is not able to be freely redistributed owing to iTunes restrictions on app redistribution under current App Store Terms & Conditions, it’s also considered a form of Digital Rights Management.
Courmont’s anger has actually been directed at the wrong party (Apple), since Applidium was the one responsible for submitting the port to the iTunes App Store and were also responsible for maintaining it, not the VideoLAN project as first thought.
Since Courmont could not directly pull the app himself, the complaint with was filed Apple to pull the app based on code that he contributed, making it a licensing claim.
As a parting shot: Courmont had this to say:
“At last, Apple has removed VLC media player from its application store. Thus the incompatibility between the GNU General Public License and the AppStore terms of use is resolved – the hard way. This end should not have come to a surprise to anyone, given the precedents.”
Coincidentally, Courmont is also a Nokia employee, one of Apple’s biggest competitors.
I would always avoid any “disgruntled developer” apps. Unhappy people could easy put some VERY bad things in their code.
(I would *NEVER* hired any of those kinds of developers at my company.)
A third party posted the port of VLC, it would be hard for an upstream developer to sneak something in.
My counter argument still stands, GPLv2 is App Store compliant, despite GPLv3 not being compliant.
Apple technologies are nice if you consistently use them across the board – e.g. Mac, iTunes, iPod. If it was “made on Mac” or “sold by Apple”, it juts works. Apple products integrate well with each other.
Trying to support all manner of Linux and Windows containers and codecs on the iPhone, of course this is going to be a frustration. That’s not what the iPhone is intended for.
Well, that’s irrelevant. I mean, if a third-party developer wants to attempt handling lots of codecs inside iOS, and can gain popularity for doing it… more power to them. That’s the beauty of open source code.
Apple pulling this app sets a bad precedent, where anyone inside a GPL project can craft an argument not based in legality, but in their own discontent, and get someone else’s downstream app pulled.
It underscores why devices need to support sideloading, so that there is no single gatekeeper that can keep apps from release.
I know the VLC developer that objected to VLC on iPhone agrees with me on that last point, but I disagree with his ability to force Apple to take down an app because of it. The marketplace must demand sideloading, not the fiats of one single developer.
Courmont grow a pair *douchebag* . VLC WAS MY FAVORITE APP
@Cristopher:
>My counter argument still stands, GPLv2 is App Store compliant, despite GPLv3 not being compliant.
Are you sure? The point is that user rights were restricted, and this is something not allowed by GPL.
>Apple pulling this app sets a bad precedent, where anyone inside a GPL project can craft an argument not based
>in legality, but in their own discontent, and get someone else’s downstream app pulled.
The argument was based on legality, because otherwise Apple would have ignored it.
>It underscores why devices need to support sideloading, so that there is no single gatekeeper that can keep
>apps from release.
I totally agree with this. I am sure that if users were able to install software from sources other than App Store there would have been no problem because, even if GPL letter says that you should be able to distribute the app itself [which is not possible given app store polices] GPL spirit would be observed, in that users would be able to distribute the app.
@Lincoln
>Apple technologies are nice if you consistently use them across the board – e.g. Mac, iTunes, iPod.
>If it was “made on Mac†or “sold by Appleâ€, it juts works. Apple products integrate well with each other.
>
>Trying to support all manner of Linux and Windows containers and codecs on the iPhone, of course this is going
>to be a frustration. That’s not what the iPhone is intended for.”
You are missing the point. The point is that Apple preferred removing a good application than modifying their rules to comply with GPL.
I find it funny that Steve states he is against Flash partially because it is not open, yet the App store rules are deliberately rejecting software specifically because it conflicts with the open-source license.
Wow.
Open source? GPL? Closed source? It was free…. So what if there’s a limit on how many machines I can transfer it to. The fact that it’s free makes the limit a non-issue. The disgruntled VLC developer wanted to use this as a reason to attack Apple and try to force them to allow non DRM software. Apple said no as it didn’t fit their business model and did the polite thing by simply removing the offending app. Open source always accuses closed source of restricting end users but in this case one disgruntled open source guy restricts the whole iOS market. Doesn’t sound so open.
@Justin
>Open source? GPL? Closed source? It was free….
It was free as in free beer, and that is not something that Courmont could accept.
And it is not about open or closed source, because the port actually *was* open source.
It just wasn’t free software, and that is a violation of the GPL.
What you seem to miss is that Apple was doing a _copyrigth infringment_ by distributin the program.
So does this mean we can get it pulled from the Android App store (and Nokia if they come out with one)?
@MrMe
The Android App store does not restrict and there are no conflicts with GPL. Even if there were, Android allows you to install without the store without violating their rules, so any website could host the installation package and users could still get the software if they wish.
Leonardo,
The “user-rights” you are referring to are included in the anti-tivoization provisions of GPLv3. They are not a part of GPLv2.
iOS is powered by gazillions of lines of GPLv2 code. There is no legitimate reason to have VLC pulled from the App Store as a GPLv2 app.
That’s why this is wrong for Apple to cave to, because downstream app developers are now being hampered from two sides… Apple can reject their app, and angry developers upstream can pout until Apple pulls the app, due to outside pressure.
Also, as to the limited number of installs, that too is incorrect. You can’t install the iOS that came with your iPod touch and deploy it on 50 ARM devices.
iOS uses GPLv2 code just like VLC for iOS did, so that argument holds no water either.
My advice to developers of VLC for iOS, change the name and re-submit to Apple. As long as it isn’t branded as VLC, the developer’s demanding takedown could face legal action for submitting false GPLv2 complaints to Apple.
I agree with Christopher, from my general understanding of GPL2 you have always been able to sell and distribute GPL2 code, you just had to release any changes you made to the code covered in it.
I forget the exact product, but I remember seeing a firewall software suite that had a community version, which shared standard features under the GPL. They maintained the code and released it too all to view and use. They also had a professional version where they built proprietary modules on top of the standard open base and did not release this to anyone, and charged money for licenses.
For me that is fine with the GPL, and a big reason why it is so successful. Why would these huge companies like IBM, Intel and even Apple pour resources into projects if they were never allowed to charge and restrict distribution of their final products? Darwin is open source and is in every version of OSX, you can not freely install OSX on any system you want and you have to pay for it. What’s the difference?
If VLC is released under the GPL2 I think that anyone should be able to compile the source and distribute it however they like. As long as the copyright notices are present and they release all their changes to the GPL’d code.
Courtmont is a fucking cunt. What a moron.