VLC for iOS Pulled from the App Store

Disclaimer: VideoLAN Chairman and lead VLC developer here.<p>I've written the most important analysis on the matter <a href="http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-November/077457.html" rel="nofollow">http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Novembe...</a> and <a href="http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-December/078262.html" rel="nofollow">http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Decembe...</a><p>Some VLC developers (for Mac mainly), with the company Applidium, have ported VLC on iOS. Applidium published it on the store, for free.<p>Some developer complained (quite lately, btw...) afterwards and quoted a FSF analysis. Their analysis was totally wrong (spoke about redistribution), and based on old version of AppStore terms.<p>After my remarks about changes of the AppStore terms that made this analysis obsolete and wrong, they shifted their criticism onto another part, which was the "usage" part of the ToS. They complained that the terms did not allow all uses, especially commercial ones.<p>Indeed, one part could be interpreted in different ways. Therefore, I've mailed Apple Copyright Agent for explanation, twice. Once in November, once in December...<p>Apple has refused to answer, to explain or to help in any matter. They then decided to pull the Application unilaterally from the AppStore.<p>Of course, they are allowed to do that, and noone can complain, but this is yet another push from Apple against VLC, that adds to the very long list of past issues. It just makes me think Apple doesn't really want competition...

It seems that this is the best analysis for now. <a href="http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-November/077457.html" rel="nofollow">http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Novembe...</a><p>Apple changed App Store terms. Previously:<p>The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been established between you and another party<p>Now:<p>...unless the App Store Product is covered by a valid end user license agreement entered into between you and the licensor of the App Store Product (the "Licensor"), in which case the Licensor's end user license agreement will apply<p>So either GPLv2 is a valid end user license agreement, or if it isn't, one just needs some out-of-bound mechanism that users and developers agree on GPLv2.

I hate to say it, but this is why I have a big problem with the GPL.<p>Not for infrastructure software like operating systems, web servers, and databases (where I think it is appropriate and beneficial), but for code intended for use in end-user applications (including web applications).<p>I think licenses like BSD, MIT, and Apache spur more innovation in those cases. You can make the argument that companies have no incentive to contribute back to open source projects without copyleft licenses, but projects like Webkit and Rails have proven otherwise.

So is this what GPL developers consider a "win?" The GPL seems designed to create something for developers to fuss about. The net effect is pretty stupid compared to BSD/MIT/Apache. It's been long ago proved that the community deals fairly with contributions of any kind. The only difference then with GPL is that it locks out many legitimate uses (businesses) that might have otherwise been available. That's not "free," that's "restrictive," no matter how many times Stallman bangs his drum.

Now up in Cydia on my repo: <a href="http://rpetri.ch/repo" rel="nofollow">http://rpetri.ch/repo</a><p>Adjusted source to allow installation to /Applications is here: <a href="http://rpetri.ch/github/MobileVLC" rel="nofollow">http://rpetri.ch/github/MobileVLC</a>

According to TUAW <a href="http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-store/" rel="nofollow">http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-stor...</a>, its one Rémi Denis-Courmont employed under Nokia who waged the campaign. How true is it? Sounds more like a corporate conspiracy than a fight for principle.

How does this work for people who've downloaded it? I've got the better part of Family Guy's run on my iPhone playing with VLC. That combo has brought me more enjoyment than all of my other apps combined.<p>On a side note: I recently made the difficult decision of creating a library from scratch since the only one available was GPL. I guess that was the correct decision after all?

So how does this in any way enhance the freedom of users?

Will someone please summarize? The link makes only a vague statement about incompatibility between GPL code and the App Store...

Of course this is App Store's problem, and VLC for iOS should be no problem to install from Cydia.

Battle for Wesnoth had the same problem: <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/396535/" rel="nofollow">http://lwn.net/Articles/396535/</a>

Looks like Rémi Denis-Courmont pulled his blog and his resume. What is going on there? His posting is aggregated on planet vlc, but it does not link to the original.

So Rémi Denis-Courmont is basically putting his open software principles ahead of the utility users would get on their iPhones. Very noble indeed...

I would like to understand something here. As far as I was explained by experts (I'm not a lawyer) GPL license does not allow to publish software on closed / proprietary platforms controlled by ToS similar to Apple AppStore. My understanding it is not that VLC on iOS is breaking AppStore ToS but GPL license which is very restrictive when you release something based on it but it is not open sourced.<p>Am I wrong here?

I don't have an iPhone because of this walled garden approach to software on it. I'm glad that this has happened as maybe there will be fewer walled garden type situations in the future. It is a pity for users who miss out on VLC but they've made a choice by buying a product that's locked to a single marketplace for apps and they have to live with that.

Putting aside all the issues involved here, what I don't understand to begin with is why any other iOS dev has not done an app that can play back the kind of AVI files most people have in their collections to begin with. Is it that hard? Or did devs shy away from it because they never expected Apple to approve such an app? Now that Apple has, will someone else come in with something else? This is a capability that's truly needed. There's just no way I'm going to ever convert my AVIs to MP4s. It'd be faster and cheaper just to get an Archos Android tablet to play those videos. (Note I mention Archos specifically because for years they've developed that capability and have ported that native software to now run under Android.)

This is very disappointing. VLC is a great product and so are the iPhone and iPad devices. Not having to convert video and being able to play them on the devices was very welcome!<p>It's such a shame... This to me has a similar kind of feel to patent trolling.

If you are curious about the differences of terms in the iTunes store policy and what has been introduced by the "Mac App Store":<p><a href="http://www.goodiff.org/changeset/597/apple/www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.goodiff.org/changeset/597/apple/www.apple.com/leg...</a>

Why isn't there a third-party app store, by the way? iPhone only runs executables signed by Apple? I suppose that on Android, if Google's Android market sucks anyone can create a new market that ranks the applications better or simply lures in better apps?

"This end should not have come to a surprise to anyone."<p>Also, is it terribly selfish of me to find this enjoyable partly because of the App Store apologists and partly because it means there will be more focus on VLC for Android?

This is one reason why I have <i>no</i> desire to use Apple products and have essentially retired my iOS device. This restricts a great library of possible software from ever making it to my device and restricts the possibility of a decent freedom that some developers wish to give. This would not be a big deal if you could distribute software like on a normal computer (or most other mobile OSs.. including Blackberry, Palm OS (historical at least), Android, Windows Mobile (historical at least), Maemo, and so on). I shouldn't have to worry about the official distribution channel's restrictions imposing on what is essentially my computer as a whole.