I always understood this as the actual source code of the application that needed to be available and not the binaries
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
VLC Developers Accuse Apple of Copyright Infringement, Blame App Store Rules
- Thread starter Darth.Titan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I understand the point perfectly clear. The VLC developers are childish and not accepting responsibility for the wrong they committed. They tried to put the blame on Apple but don't have a leg to stand on because Apples developer agreement states its the developers responsibility, not Apples.
Imagine if you are a website host with hundreds of thousands of websites, would you go through every single one of your clients websites to make sure no copyrighted material was posted on any of them? Nope. Its the clients responsibility to ensure what they put on their site is legit to keep themselves from getting sued. The same goes for the app store and hosting anything that is part of an open source project. The clause that I posted earlier covers Apple and prevents them from being responsible by saying its up to the developers to ensure that any FOSS licensing agreements are taken care of.
You should differentiate between Applidium, the VideoLAN association, and Rémi Denis-Courmont.
The Applidium developers submitted the app, not the VideoLAN association and not Rémi Denis-Courmont, although "the association has taken side with Applidium by advertising the appstore release". Rémi Denis-Courmont, one of VLC's (≠VLC-iOS) core developers, is the one accusing Apple of Copyright infringement, as well as accusing the association of "complicity of copyright infringement in actively promoting VLC on AppStore".
The thread's title as well as the original post are a little misleading.
That's not how lawyers are interpreting things.
You can't remove liability for everything with a paragraph in a contract.
Apple approves stuff like "Mario Soundboards" and then lets Nintendo complain.
When they do, Apple takes it down and Nintendo deals with that developer directly. I've seen it happen a couple of times. Apple's stance seems to be that they'll put up anything that might have legal problems until the wronged party complains.
So this is no different. Apple probably assumed they'd get this complaint and then take it down, but that's apparently the order they do it in. It seems they're not interested in guessing which apps might get sued or might not ahead of time.
And, really, it's the better way of doing it...what if they rejected an app on those grounds but then the offended party isn't actually offended? They'll give it a chance then take it down when it doesn't work out.
I'm not a lawyer, but I can recognize patterns. If they do it this way for every other app, I'd have to assume they've thought about it and figure it's ok to do it that way. Why would VLC be treated any differently than a Mario soundboard? It got the same treatment.
When they do, Apple takes it down and Nintendo deals with that developer directly. I've seen it happen a couple of times. Apple's stance seems to be that they'll put up anything that might have legal problems until the wronged party complains.
So this is no different. Apple probably assumed they'd get this complaint and then take it down, but that's apparently the order they do it in. It seems they're not interested in guessing which apps might get sued or might not ahead of time.
And, really, it's the better way of doing it...what if they rejected an app on those grounds but then the offended party isn't actually offended? They'll give it a chance then take it down when it doesn't work out.
I'm not a lawyer, but I can recognize patterns. If they do it this way for every other app, I'd have to assume they've thought about it and figure it's ok to do it that way. Why would VLC be treated any differently than a Mario soundboard? It got the same treatment.
So basically Apple manages to keep VLC out of the app store, VLC being one of the only media players on there that will play a wide variety of content from sources other than Apple. Yet Apple will still be seen as the good guy in the end, since they at least did approve the app and in the end, by finally pulling it from the store, only did what was legally required of them. Honi soit qui mal y pense.
So basically Apple manages to keep VLC out of the app store, VLC being one of the only media players on there that will play a wide variety of content from sources other than Apple. Yet Apple will still be seen as the good guy in the end, since they at least did approve the app and in the end only did what was legally required of them. Honi soit qui mal y pense.
j/k
actually there's a few of them, oplayer, cinexplayer, airvideo just to name a few...
Yeah, I mean, consider the alternative. Would we really want Apple rejecting apps because there might be legal troubles down the road? Where do they draw the line? That could include anything from 10% to 90% of apps depending on how they define that. It would be the most unfair of all the reasons for rejection.
Their current stance of "we don't pay attention to that stuff" may not be ideal, but at least it gives everyone an even starting point.
I stand corrected...of course, VLC is a rather high-profile (and free - as in beer) app.
Rémi Denis-Courmont said:
I agree.
You have been tricked. It's political debate season. Politicians say things that sounds one way to their cheering fans, but actually causes the near opposite effect after going through the legal process.
The FSF is a political organization. What they call FREE software is actually some of the most costly and restrictive stuff that a business can touch.
Beware (of both the FSF and political ads).
Only after being legally notified that they were given "stolen" software by the copyright holder. After all, the GPL does not prohibit the copyright holder from offering software under dual or multiple licenses, including ones that allow DRM, and Apple has no way to know that this wasn't done with the submitted app unless notified by the copyright holder of this "theft".
But IANAL.
To the letter of the law they are correct. In the spirit of fairness they are being pedantic.
They could just change the license. But I forgot, that is almost impossible. If they are going to be so pernickety and start threatening legal action then Apple will just pull it and no one will win.
What a silly state of affairs.
They could just change the license. But I forgot, that is almost impossible. If they are going to be so pernickety and start threatening legal action then Apple will just pull it and no one will win.
What a silly state of affairs.
This has nothing to do with DRM, or FAIRPLAY... As long as you can get your own source code and compile it (which you can) it's not an issue. The binary has nothing to do with it.
I'm not sure what you mean.
The legal problem here is that there's no way to distribute an App on the App Store without the FairPlay DRM (even if that App is free and open source).
The licence that VLC was originally released under (GPL) requires that anyone distributing the App not impose any restrictions on the further distribution of that software.
If I download VLC for Windows, I can send the installer to a friend and they can pass it on to their friends etc.
That's not possible with iOS Apps. If I download it from the App Store, my copy will only work with my iTunes Store account.
This is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
I thought the point of open-source software was accessibility?
Why limit accessibility on one of the most popular platforms just because DRM contradicts the spirit of their original licensing agreement? It's still free, it's getting into more peoples' hands, and it's bumping the profile of the project.
I totally get Mr. Deni-Courmont's point, but he's very short-sighted. In situations like this, you bend the rules for the greater good of the project, as long as it does not conflict with the MAIN and most important issues: free distribution.
I thought the point of open-source software was accessibility?
Why limit accessibility on one of the most popular platforms just because DRM contradicts the spirit of their original licensing agreement? It's still free, it's getting into more peoples' hands, and it's bumping the profile of the project.
I totally get Mr. Deni-Courmont's point, but he's very short-sighted. In situations like this, you bend the rules for the greater good of the project, as long as it does not conflict with the MAIN and most important issues: free distribution.