Recently I’ve complained a bit about the righteousness of Apache and, at times, its negative effect on open source and Java. Well, recently the GNU Freetards got into the act against Apple. It seems a piece of GPL licensed software, VLC, was published by iTunes, and one of the original developers of VLC sued Apple to remove it from iTunes stating that the GPL conflicted with the DRM licensing required by anything distributed by the App-store. It seems that the DRM licensing forbids reverse engineering of downloaded apps, while GPL allows (and encourages) it.
Its the spirit, not the fine print, that matters
The spirit of the GPL, IMO, is that once something is open source, it stays open source, derivative works and all. If you want to link it with your software, then your software must also become open source. Denis-Courmont’s beef with Apple is just semantics. You don’t need to be able to reverse engineer VLC binaries, because the source is available. You can fork VLC into your own app and post it on the Apple App-Store with no problem. I’ve also heard that the DRM forbids more than 5 copies of your downloaded binary to be distributed on various devices, which also breaks the GPL. So what? You can always download, for free, another duplicate binary.
There are consequences to fundamentalism
The first and obvious consequence to the actions is that iPhone users can’t get VLC anymore, unless of course they have the technical know-how to jailbreak their phones (which the vast majority don’t). The second is that all the hard work of the developers who created the iPhone app is thrown out the door. I don’t know about you, but I’d be pretty pissed. Third, and most important is, does this screw the rest of us developers that want to distribute GPL/LGPL software for iPhone/iPad? Which pisses me off, because, I prefer the LGPL, and more importantly the spirit of that license, not the fine-print.
I think a better approach would have been to be less confrontational and more cooperative. For instance, I bet Red Hat and other large companies, if you asked, would be more than willing to officially ask Apple to change their policies to be more GPL friendly. There are a lot of different ways to pressure Apple, while at the same time, not screwing the rest of us who want to distribute GPL/LGPL based software on iTunes.
This general approach to life that ideals and principle should always trump compromise gets us things like crappy health care bills, deadlocked legislatures, poor union contracts across various industries, and probably a lockout for the NFL season next year. Hopefully this unwavering/uncompromising idealism that seems to permeate our society as of late is just a fad. One can only dream…
Hopefully Apple does the right thing
Finally, hopefully Apple revises its terms of use to be GPL, LGPL, and open-source-license friendly. But, IMO, iTunes and the App-Store is their baby. Its a privilege, not a right to use it. (Java falls into the same boat, unfortunately). Sady, we can’t expect this change to happen. In the meantime, we probably have to use a different license to distribute open source software on iTunes. Thanks Denis-Courmont…
Bill the Plumber 
Jan 14, 2011 @ 19:01:26
You always have a strange perspective Bill. On approach, I agree that good advocacy is asking for the nice thing first (http://www.softpanorama.org/OSS/bad_linux_advocacy_faq.shtml). However, Apple has censored all manner of speech, religion and competition from its store that it requires to be used with its closed platform. I also hate this kind of device, if I buy it, I should decide how to use it. I still get ticked everytime my DVD player won’t let me fastforward past a preview or FBI warning like my ol VCR could. Its even illegal now for me to fix that. Why should I be limited on how I use a device I paid for? The state of American post-free market capitalism being what it is…every device works this way now. (Recommend reading “Titan” about John D. Rockefeller to understand how differing philosophies about capitalism and “competitive capitalism” developed)
However if I develop a piece of software, I have a right to ask for some kind of compensation. That compensation may be that you share with me. If Apple doesn’t like that term, it shouldn’t use it. Just like if you don’t like Microsoft Window’s license terms (including cost) then you shouldn’t use it! It isn’t the GPL developer’s fault that Apple is paternalistic and doesn’t like the GPL terms.
I also regard Apple as unlikely to change their terms. Despite the bad advocacy, it probably yielded the same outcome.
Jan 14, 2011 @ 22:44:13
From what I understand from reading a few articles about this episode, it is Denis-Courmont that got VLC removed from the App Store. Apple didn’t really care that the app was GPL’d until they were sued.
I’ve never felt limited or censored with my use of any Apple device, well, that is, until the Denis-Courmont lawsuit.
I also agree with you that Apple is unlikely to change their terms. But, now, they probably will deny any listing of GPL/LGPLed based binaries because of this lawsuit. Please tell me how that is good for open source…
Jan 14, 2011 @ 23:14:36
According to this: http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-October/077325.html – The VLC for the iphone was a derivative work that was licensed in violation of the GPL because of requirements of the apple store. Let’s say that I were to publish JBoss for the iPhone (for some reason) and people wanted to use it. Let’s say apple required license terms attached to it that violated the LGPL and even contributed source to JBoss that RH cannot agree to relicense as it doesn’t own it either. Would Red Hat then be at fault if it asked it be removed? OR would fault more clearly lie with ME first for violating the license terms and Apple secondly for requiring me to.
I can’t live without Google voice or google navigation. I’d be lost and out of contact! And I don’t really need to put my picture on Jesus’s body, but I support your right to do that on your phone if it makes you happe. And I didn’t play the game that the movie producer wanted taken down because he thought it might satirize him, but I of course don’t want Apple to decide that I don’t need to.
It is better for the free software movement that the GPL be complied with. I don’t think it really affects open source one way or another that iPhone users who choose to buy a closed and restrictive platform (more restrictive and closed than Microsoft ever dreamed of being) have to go buy another app. Oh well, cry me a river or just go get an Android phone and don’t worry about this stuff anymore 🙂 I’m getting me a 4G one well before there ever will be a 4G iPhone and I can run anything I like on it! I can even tether it.
-Andy
Feb 21, 2011 @ 16:44:30
Compromise is what gave the US a crappy health care bill, not principles.
Now if the two extremes Apple (charge everyone, closed source) and the ‘Freetards’ as you call them (everything free, open source) could compromise, we’d have something.
I’ll take your fat ass to task for using the term ‘freetards’ some other time
Mar 31, 2011 @ 04:55:36
Well looks like apple is now removing all gpl code from any of their software. Xcode will stop using gcc, in favor of llvm so that it could go for sale in the new apple store. Apple announced that they will release their implementation of SMB coming with lion.
Regarding the VLC guys, they did right going to Apple. When they started VLC they had the choice of different licences and they choose gpl, as it it protects the freedom of the code, in the sense that the code will stay free and so it’s derivatives. There are other licences the permits people to take over the code compile it and claim it as proprietary, ex BSD, which by the way there is still a big chunk od BSD code in osx.
The freetards are quite savvy people, as they know what happens when you permit companies to claim ownership of new technologies, monopoly. It happened before with telephones, radios, tvs and now there is a fierce battle for the internet. It all boils down to choosing for either individual freedom or collective freedom.
Mar 31, 2011 @ 13:01:07
I don’t like GPL because its viral when linking to it. Kinda lame, IMO, to force somebody that wants to use your stuff to also be open source. Its a personal choice IMO, which is why I prefer something like LGPL. I’ve been using ASL lately, only because my stuff is being distributed with ASL licensed softare :(.
But, IMO, the VLC battle, (really only one VLC guy complained) potentially disrupts my freedom to distribute GPL (and probably LGPL too) on the Apple App Store all because the fine print in both the GPL and TOU lics of both parties. What happens if Apple says “Fuck the freetards, no more (L)GPL code on the app store period!” (maybe they’ve already done this). As an open source guy, I may be forced to use another open source license like BSD or ASL to distribute OSS software on Apple’s App Store. Where’s the freedom in that?