Comments on: VLC on Thin Ice at the App Store?

By: fuuuuuuuuu...

fuuuuuuuuu... — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 09:21:05 +0000

You’ve already got your copy ? You’re a moron, this version doesn’t have access to hardware acceleration, thus is useless on HD content… One of the really nice thing would be to see an app with this functionality, and eventually Apple could have relented and pulled up an API out of its ass like it did on the mac for a restricted subset of GPU.
Now what ? We get nothing, because of this moronic licensing feud.VLC was a good candidate to push things further on the front of video playing on iPhone, damnit !!

By: Kevin Schumacher

Kevin Schumacher — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 08:01:51 +0000

A lengthy (but worthwhile) analysis of this issue:
http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-November/077457.html

The short version is it’s not as clear-cut as it seems, and in fact the App Store license seems to have changed such that if you have a license with the licensor (distributor/developer) of the App, the App Store license does not apply.

By: Blake Helms

Blake Helms — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 22:01:05 +0000

By the letter of the law Apple is violating the license, I don’t deny that. I think this is why the GPL needs to be amended to take distribution models such as the app store into account. App stores aren’t going to go away anytime soon. While it does attach DRM, for a free app the app store for all intents and purposes only serves as an installer. Anyone can go and download it. Having said that I do wish Apple gave developers the option of opting out of DRM.

If this becomes a religious war then open source loses, Apple isn’t going to back down and the average consumer is going to pick the simplicity of the app store every time.

By: Ed

Ed — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 21:50:52 +0000

What a bunch of crybabies. What gives Apple the right to modify an App in violation of the license. What do you think apple would do if you modified their software in violation of there license terms.

If you have a beef, put the blame where it belongs, with the control freaks at Apple.

By: Ian

Ian — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 21:01:01 +0000

I’m always for open standards, not closed as Flash is. Sure while Apple my be spearheading the movement to HTML5, it’s a good move for all companies to embrace.

Android is only almost more open than Apple is by a hair. Google exerts a lot of control on their OS as well as caving to pressure from the telco who lock down the OS as bad as Apple does. Rooting or Jailbreaking, Kettle meet pot.

98% of the users don’t care, most aren’t technical enough to give a crap either way. They’re all “DRM What?”

As for Google’s DRM, their ‘licensing service’ is just that and I’m sure it’ll be mandatory one day. I haven’t read much on it.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 20:41:22 +0000

I don’t see any Android phones following the DRM policy, but on the contrary they head on the open source philosophy, while they gain ground constantly.

It’s like the Flash – HTML5 war. Which side did you there?

Whatever the outcome is, I think the users have to decide the software they use without having to jailbreak their device. I wouldn’t like my Mac’s only source of software being an AppStore.

By: Ian

Ian — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:47:27 +0000

Why should apple have to revise their policy?

I’m sure that nearly all smart phones will force DRM in the near future to help protect devs.

The GPL license needs to be changed to accommodate the future and accept that there will be DRM on mobile devices and make clauses to reflect that.

If the source isn’t released, go after the dev to release it.

By: MacRat

MacRat — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:58:39 +0000

I’m a big fan of open source projects.

But this is an example of how the Free Software Foundation “religion” hurts software and users rather than help.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:34:36 +0000

I guess Apple is the one who has to revise its models. Apple’s approach is really fascist and totally opposed to the GPL license. Innovation gets harmed by Apple’s authorization rules and DRM system and not by FSF.

By: Mike Perry

Mike Perry — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:10:33 +0000

Let me get this right. Soon, users won’t be free to get a copy of a Free Software Foundation application for their iPhones because rules developed a decade and more ago for distributing software to desktop computers are being violated, rules that seem to assume that every iPhone user is ready, willing and able to recode and branch their own version of VLC.

Like Black and Ian before me, I suspect the Free Software Foundation needs to tweak their policies for apps running on mobile devices. I may get mad if my iMac crashes and I have to reboot, or even use my laptop until I can fix the problem. But I simply can’t afford to have my iPhone crashing, shutting off all phone contact with the world.

In short, an iPhone isn’t a desktop computer and apps for it shouldn’t be forced to play by the same rules. The FSF rules need to bend a bit to take into account that difference.