No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

This is as it should be. You cannot create an ecosystem that is diametrically opposed to every principle the FSF has ever stood for, and then expect to be able to distribute GPL licensed code from it. I'm actually glad to see the GPL working.

This is a good (but painful) thing. The GPL is designed to counteract the sort distribution lockdown that the App Store represents, and it's doing its job here. The GPL is diametrically opposed to the App Store ecosystem (buy once, reuse/modify never), and it's a good thing that it's being enforced, even if it does mean the loss of quality software on the iOS platform.<p>This really does underscore, however, how important it is to license your code carefully. If you want to make it completely free (as in, "I don't care what you do with it" free), use BSD. If you want to make sure that your software is never used restrictively and that it continually promotes the free software ethos, then GPL is a great tool.

Another reason to go BSD over GPL unless you really do care about the GNU project more than shipping code &#38; solutions.

This is much more about a single VLC developer spitefully griefing the others than the GPL.<p>The only reason he has grounds to send C&#38;D letters to Apple is because he holds copyright over his contributions to VLC. The other developers don't give a shit that the Apple-distributed binaries aren't redistributable by default, given that the iOS port is still fully open source and is trivially redistributable/compilable on jailbroken devices.

To me this seems like a failure of the simplicity of the GPL, but with no easy fix. Apple doesn't want to restrict the <i>program</i> to anyone, they just want to have their distribution process restrictive. If there was a way to proxy the supply of the restriction-free binary and/or source code of the app there wouldn't be a problem. The app submitter or VLC devs or another interested party would step up to host.

It's sad how many developers use /L?GPLv[23]/ licensing for their software without actually understanding what those licenses <i>are about</i>. Then crying out loud about "FSF destroying communities" and insisting on "oh, just don't tell anyone about GPL incompatibilities here, because distribution is more important."<p>If they consider an ability to ship the software more important than users' freedoms (in GPL sense), they should've been using appropriate license. I'm not saying GPL is a good or bad choice, but talking about being responsible in (licensing) decisions and statements.

Can't it be re-released under dual licenses? There seems to be plenty of other software out there that has done this.

User-hostile is what it is.

I've made a couple of video clips and published them under cc-by.<p>Say someone (A) wanted to use my clip in a bigger project, but couldn't give me attribution because someone else higher up in the bigger project (B) insists on not crediting any outsiders.<p>Would it be wrong of me in this hypothetical to demand that I either be attributed or they don't get to use my clip? Should I even feel guilty?<p>Bill, like anyone's going to want to use my clips of ducks quacking or sword waving.