Because numerous other FLOSS licenses, including others that are copyleft licenses such as MS-PL, do not run into problems if someone uses code under those licenses in an app that they distribute through the App Store.
The GPL ends up standing out as the "free" license that makes it hardest to actually distribute free software and reuse free code in other free software projects.
Hm, it seems to me it's very difficult to reuse the BSD code that underlies iOS. Yeah, you can use the code that Apple gives you, but as far as making modifications Apple actively makes it so you run into problems.
In other words, talking about reuse is changing the subject. The important thing is freedom to modify the code you're using.
The important thing is freedom to modify the code you're using.
As someone who prefers to license under the FreeBSD license -- no it's not. It's about contributing code to make software everywhere better (whether or not you can modify the result or not). Now, this is just my opinion, but so is yours and you should probably speak of it that way instead of like fact.
In essence, the GPL plays the long game and BSD plays the short game. This statement:
>The GPL ends up standing out as the "free" license that makes it hardest to actually distribute free software and reuse free code in other free software projects.
Is only true when you look at it immediately. In the long run, BSD licenses stand out as the ones that make it hardest to reuse code, because people don't have to think about reuse when they modify it, which is an important consideration. If you're just modifying some code for your company's internal use, not only are you not going to refuse to distribute it, you're going to avoid coding for situations that have wider applicability.
And of course this is my opinion. That was clear when I said "the important thing." There's no need to pepper my speech with "I think" when I'm obviously stating things that are not factual.
So who lied, then, when they agreed to Apple's explicitly stated terms and gave Apple permission to distribute VLC in this form in the App Store? If VLC gets removed, it's because this developer is essentially demanding that Apple remove it.
The dev who is asking to remove it is not the same as the one who submitted it to the appstore. VLC is foss and as such any contributor is a copyright holder and can ask apple to remove it from the appstore.
I know it's not the same individual that submitted as is making the current complaint.
Whomever agreed to Apple's terms told Apple, by way of agreeing to the contract, that they had full rights and authority to grant Apple the right to distribute the app with all the associated restrictions, etc. outlined in the contract. It would seem that when you consider the terms of the GPL, that person did not have the authority to claim such a thing. That person lied or, at best, was simply mistaken. This isn't Apple's fault. That's all I'm saying. Perhaps ultimately we agree on that point.
Open apps can't get on the iPhone because Apple disallows it.
Apple is pulling it out, they control what software can or cannot get in. There's no way for anyone to install anything (legally, and without hassle) on the iTouch devices without Apple's permission.
No, you don't get it. The fact that VLC was on the App Store is clear proof that Apple has no problem with the GPL. It is the GPL that has a problem with the App Store. Considering that there is plenty of software on the store using other open licenses, such as BSD and LGPL, and putting it together with Apple's willingness to allow GPL'd software(VLC) on the App Store, it is clear that the party causing VLC to be pulled is in fact the copyright holder and no-one else. Claims of "But, but, he made me do it!" are every bit as immature as they sound.
Ugh. Is that what you really think that I mean? In case my point wasn't clear enough, I mean to say that Apple doesn't get mixed up in licensing arrangements between app developers and third parties, or if they do, it is just to takedown software that infringes the third party's rights, not to actually comply with the third party's demands
I don't even see how Apple could comply with the licensing terms. They don't have the source code of the app in question, so they can't comply even if they wanted to. Unless you're suggesting that Apple should force every app developer to hand over their source code to Apple, and give Apple the right to distribute it without the developer's agreement? Yeah, that's an attractive deal, I'm sure it'll do wonders for the number of apps in the App Store...
I've been dying to ask: What kinds of awesome things can you do with a jailbroken iPhone? I know you can install VLC + some software to stream videos from some other computer via wifi, which is pretty sweet. What else?
I've been considering Jailbreaking, but it would be cool to have a compelling, shiny reason.
Each of those, I can check simply by sliding the "unlock" slider.
The daily event isn't really relevant because all events will alert me anyway (because they beep when it's time to do it).
Mail again isn't very relevant.. I'm mostly at a computer all day, I have email open anyway.
The weather I just don't care about.
Apologies for sounding argumentative / etc, I don't mean to! I am merely pointing out that I want to do something cool with a Jailbroken iPhone, something I can't do with my regular iPhone. Else I'll pass. :)
Ah, well, it doesn't make it magical, it just makes it more useful... For example, my lock button is broken but I can shake to lock it. Otherwise I would be out of luck.
