A potential licensing fight raised by one of its developer could leave in the popular free and undecided - origin video player VLC being pull from the App Store .
In addition to being destitute in the sentience that it costs nothing , VLC is also unfastened - reservoir software developed collaboratively under the GNU Public License ( GPL ) , which is plan to advertize the creation of software that can be freely qualify and redistribute by anyone , as long as they do so in compliance with the permit .
for preserve the freedom of the software it protects , the GPL inflict several conditions under which redistribution may take lieu ; in finical , the redistribution of the software must be unrestricted under any circumstance , allowing any user to give another exploiter a operative copy under the same original terms .
For its part , Apple has yet to reply in any style to the complaint and , at the metre of this writing , the app was still available for download from iTunes . If the yesteryear is any indication , however , the most potential outcome is that Apple will plainly pull VLC from the App Store — something thatit has already donewith a embrasure of the GNU Go game .
What’s at stake?
Proponents of the GPL advocate a very specific model under which software system should be write and distribute for protect what they claim arefour fundamental freedoms : the ability to ladder a programme for any determination , study and understand how it forge , redistribute copies to “ help your neighbor , ” and distribute qualify copies of the software system to others .
TheFree Software Foundation , which has originated the GPL and task itself with administering and impose it , has been prosecute these goal with various degree of aggressiveness , clashing along the means with both commercial package marketer — who typically want to keep as many of the right hand associated with their software program skinny to their chests — and advocate of a more relaxed and collaborative coming to software freedom , which include well - experience industry luminaries like Bruce Perens , Eric Raymond , and Linux Divine Linus Torvalds .
At the bosom of difference of opinion like this one is whether Apple ’s distribution terms limit the freedoms imposed by the GPL because the company make it impossible for users to legally redistribute copies of the package they purchase on iTunes and because to do so Apple relies on digital rights management software , which is explicitly prohibited by recent versions of the GPL .
The Free Software Foundation ’s stance is that Apple must qualify the iTunes licensing term in order for GPL software to be allowed on the App Store ; for its part , Cupertino has ( unsurprisingly ) never commented publically on this issue ; its only reply has been to pull GPL package for which it incur a copyright ill from the stock .
GPL and open source
It ’s important to keep in mind that the GPL is only one of many licensing pick available to those who like to parcel out their software under an exposed - source model . Several other licence survive that are entirely compatible with the App Store and cellular inclusion in commercial projects ; in fact , a dim-witted lookup for iPhone package on code - hosting sites likeGithubreturns over 2000 undertaking that developer — both individual and incarnate — are openly distributing , often under permit that are significantly less restrictive than the GPL .
Even keeping the Free Software Foundation ’s goals in thinker , it is difficult to understand how forcing apps off the App Store could help the cause of spare software . The median substance abuser is unconvincing to fault Apple for the resulting lack of option , and the vast majority of developer do not seem to have any licensing take with the distribution mannequin whatsoever , although many have reservations with the favourable reception process and tight control that Apple keeps on the App Store — concerns that , it should be take note , Apple has set about to address cooperatively with its developer residential district .
