What's so funny about all this is that the distribution constraints of the App Store do not make it incompatible with the GPLv2. Having to pay Apple $99/year for keys is irrelevant, as is the signing of binaries that prevents redistribution between devices (and even if those were problems, there's jailbreaking). Hell, it wouldn't violate the GPLv2 even if there was no way for users to get their code on the device at all (see TiVo, et. al.). It's unfortunate that all the early discussion of this was laser-focused on the irrelevant DRM.

Rémi's argument is that the Apple Store Terms & Conditions constrain your usage rights — "YOU SHALL BE AUTHORIZED TO USE THE PRODUCTS ONLY FOR PERSONAL, NONCOMMERCIAL USE." — and downstream authors/distributors are not allowed to "impose any further restrictions" beyond the GPL.

Rémi is technically correct (the best kind of correct!) that the App Store terms are in conflict with the GPL. The clause in question isn't just for apps, its basic purpose is that purchasing a song or movie from Apple doesn't give you public performance rights to it. Apple could pay their lawyers to bloat out the whole usage section so that it'd be difficult for Rémi to pick a fight over it, but they probably won't.

But if people are going to pick fights over minor unenforceable EULA terms, they're going to find them everywhere they look. I mean for fuck's sake you also agree that you will not use iPhone software in the operation of nuclear facilities or for aircraft navigation, like in a great many EULAs. If some ideologue really wants to burn it all down they could probably find a ton of high-profile but ultimately pointless technical GPL violations in this vein.

Wherever a fight is sought it will be found. No copyright license will ever prevent either upstream or downstream from being huge asshats if that's what they want to be.

Remi's arguements were an attempt to get Apple to change the 'personal non-commercial part' of it's licence to something more open.

But I suspect that Apple removing VLC has more to do with controlling what formats you can play, and so where you can buy content, rather than a desire to protect VLC's GPL contributions.

Interesting that the super hacker cool Apple have effectively banned GPL from their popular platform and with the Mac iStore may soon be banning it from all their machines. While MSFT is announcing more open source support. Looks like the lightsaber of the dark side has been passed on.

If format control was what Apple cared about, they wouldn't have approved the app in the first place. Really, they would have left it at that.

I doubt it had anything to do with format control, seeing as CineXPlayer was on the App Store well before VLC was and is still available: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id384098375?mt=8

Apple didn't ban the GPL from the App Store.

The GPL banned the GPL from the App Store.

It's a bit fatuous to assign blame to a license agreement. You can assign blame to people that choose license agreements. In this case, that's the VLC developers for choosing the GPL, and Apple for choosing the App Store restrictions. VLC was under the GPL long before the App Store existed. It's a bit silly to say that they chose this particular incompatibility. Apple when drafting their license terms probably did not even consider the GPL, but their choice of terms is, in actual fact, banning GPL licensed transactions from using the App Store.

Their rules are mutually incompatible.

Which changes nothing, as it still isn't a conscious act by Apple to explicitly ban the GPL.

The GPL banned itself from the App Store, plain and simple, yet everybody will still make it about big bad Apple censoring libre software from the App Store. You chose the GPL when you started your project, Apple didn't. If the license that YOU chose for YOUR software doesn't allow you to distribute YOUR software under Apple's EULA, that isn't Apple's fault.

There's also no financial incentive for them to modify their EULA to be more GPL-friendly. They're going to say, gee, those hundreds of thousands of apps on the App Store have succeeded with the EULA we have, why get into legal battles over two publicized apps? The publicity is negative for us, so why bother?

On the same basis the USA bans GPL software, you aren't allowed to export stuff to naughty countries if you are American. The GPL doesn't allow you to block Cuba so nobody in the US is legally allowed to use GPL.

This doesn't seem to led to IBM, Oracle etc stopping selling Linux. Apple put a line in it's\ EULA about only being able to use app store for non-commercial use, which is ridiculous businessmen do use iPhones and iPads

IMO Apple's removal of VLC has only to do with honoring a complaint issued by a copyright holder. Nothing more, nothing less.

> While MSFT is announcing more open source support.

Erm... They may support it in some instances.

OK you aren't about to see Balmer and Stallman together in a hot tub. But MSFT haven't banned GPLed software from their platform

> MSFT haven't banned GPLed software from their platform

Apple didn't ban GPLed software from their platforms. Apple has terms of service for their software distribution mechanism that conflicts with GPL'ed software. I agree the terms are restrictive and disrespectful towards the users, but I am not sure why are you implying that Microsoft is doing much better. Have you read any recent EUAL from them?

I'm guessing these terms are to protect against piracy. I don't think distributing apps via ad-hoc distribution (with the developer license) or through their enterprise program would have these restrictions.

I am still baffled by this term:

(i) You may download and sync a Product for personal, noncommercial use on any Apple-branded products running iOS ("iOS Product") you own or control.

Doesn't that mean that you can't make commercial use of iOS apps? Isn't that ridiculous?

'Products' aren't just iOS apps — the category also includes purchased music, movies, television, audiobooks, and iPod games; as well as rentals of movies & television, iTunes U content, and probably more that I'm forgetting.

For the rest of it they'd never be able to publish it without something substantially similar to the "personal, noncommercial use" clause.

Yes, for apps they should probably totally defer to the application authors, instead of just letting them be more restrictive if they so choose.

And until they "defer" anyone who say uses twitter to promote their business is in violation of the ToS?

I have to call out the whole referenced article as BS. The situation is that Rene filed the complaint, and after Apple complied with Rene's request, Rene then blogged that Apple was being mean by removing the app, as he had requested.

Sorry but there is no honest interpretation here in which Apple is the bad guy and long winded articles claiming so because they only tell half the story are dishonest.

It's a lot easier to blame Apple, and people love doing it.

In the other thread I was absolutely appalled that the leader of the project was shifting all of the blame to Apple, and standing by his choice to do so. Just look at all of the comments on Hacker News (one in this thread) reviling Apple for their supposed "anti-GPL stance".

Clearly, the VideoLAN people got what they wanted: the app removed, and pie in the face for Apple with respect to the GPL. Two wins for the price of one?

Link: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2083254