Thursday, January 13, 2011

The VLC/iPhone Battle

For the uninitiated, VLC (Video LAN Client) is a multimedia application that plays damn near every audio and video file that I know of. The iPhone is a defective cell phone that is probably the most popular handset in the U.S.

More specifically, VLC is a piece of open-source software, licensed until the Gnu General Public License (GPL). The terms of this license clearly state that the software may be used, modified, and redistributed under the same terms that it is taken, no more and no less. The developer of the VLC client for the iPhone chose to distribute the software through the Apple "AppStore".

The iPhone, designed so poorly that it fails to function in its primary capacity (as a phone), has been widely praised by people as being fantastic, despite obvious design flaws and restrictive policies regarding software, both of the operating system and of third parties. The people that praise the iPhone are either tech journalists, who are too afraid to irritate Steve Jobs, or fanboys (someone who is so infatuated with a brand that their staunch defense of it is exceeded only by their denial of what is plainly obvious).

Here is where the clash begins. Instead of complying with the GPL, Apple decided to remove VLC from the AppStore. I have no problem with that. If they do not wish to comply with the terms of the license, they cannot redistribute the software. But this is where it gets weird.

The Apple fanboys claim to be the victims of the VLC developers. WTF?!?! The VLC devs did not remove the app; they defended their copyright. What level of feeble-mindedness does a person have to attain to blame VLC instead of Apple? Are there toxic chemicals used in the production of the iPhone that cause mental retardation among its users?

I have looked at comments on other sites and blogs, and let me tell you, the fanboys are pissed, not at Apple, but at VLC. They are right; the real loser (not being facetious) here is the iPhone user, who cannot play any and every media file under the sun, with one app, but that is not VLC's fault. VLC is not licensed under the BSD license, which means that Apple cannot just take it, modify it, rename it, and add whatever restrictions they want to it, which is exactly what they did with one of the BSD's (I believe it was Free BSD), in making OSX. That is exactly what the GPL is designed to prevent.

Free software and software that requires no monetary expense are two completely different things. As defined by the Free Software Foundation, "free software" is software that places no restriction on the user. By providing source code, the author allows the user to modify the software to suit his or her own needs. The GPL is the license that insures that you have the same freedom to modify the software as the two, ten, twenty, or two hudred thousand other people that modified it from when the author first released it until you finally found it. That 'restriction' insures freedom. You can sell the software, as is or modified, if you choose to, releasing the source code. You can change the software and not release the changes, thus not having to provide source code. You can use it as is and not redistribute it or not use it at all, making the provisions regarding source code irrelevant. The narrow-mindedness of the typical person led to the coining of the term 'open source'. While not necessarily meaning that the software is 'free', open source does not carry the connotation that money is not required.

The other kind of software is not free. It costs no money. No, it is not semantics. Adobe's Acrobat Reader costs the user no money, but you do not get to view the source code, you do not have the right to modify it, and you do not have the right to redistribute it. This kind of software is called free as in 'free beer' (costing no money), as opposed to free as in 'free speech' (as described above).

I know what the fanboys are going to say (I've seen some of the comments). If free software is free, then why do you have to follow the GPL's 'restriction'. The answer is simple, because that is the license. With that license comes freedom. With that freedom comes responsibility. For the simpletons, I will provide an example. In the U.S., the First Amendment gaurantees the right of freedom of speech, but with that right, you cannot threaten, damage, imperil, harm, or otherwise violate the other rights that others have. That is why you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. Is that simple enough fanboys (uh, I mean simpletons)?

So, back to the VLC/Apple squabble. If you fanboys think that software licenses are something that should be ignored, research Apple v. Psystar.

Monday, January 10, 2011

Targets and crosshairs imagery, "reload" soundbites, and a distorted reality show where some animal is getting killed all seem to suit Sarah Palin just fine, yet the level of vitriolic rhetoric, gun-toting tea-party members, and Tina King (the syphillitic cunt that said that it is okay that a 9 year old girl was shot and killed this weekend, because she may have grown up to be a liberal, see image below) are not her fault.


(http://obamalondon.blogspot.com/2011/01/inexplicable-edits-on-sarah-palins.html)

I do not know what world Mrs. Palin lives in or what color the sky is in it, but in they world that I live in (the one that is plagued by her narissicism, megalomania, and hypocrisy), the sky is sometimes blue and people who inspire, provoke, and/or instigate violence are responsible for the resulting violence. The tea party and its leaders are responsible for making the shooting of a sitting member of Congress an acceptable course of action. Be it Sharon Angle and her "Second Amendment remedies" comment, Sarah Palin and all of her gun metaphors, or any of the crazy shit that Michelle Bachman is known for saying at the drop of a hat, regardless of his political views, Jared Lee Loughner's actions are a direct result of the right-wing, conservative, tea party, republican rhetoric. If it seems like I'm attacking the women of the right, I am. Why not attack the men? Because from where I sit, the right has no men, just a bunch of little boys, hiding behind Sarah Palin's skirt. The men of the republican party have no balls. And Fox, well Fox is sometimes the mouthpiece and other times the puppetmaster of the republican party. Fox is just as culpable, but they won't admit guilt, even after the next shooting.

The rhetoric of "watering the tree of liberty", the rhetoric of "pallin' around with terrorists", and the rhetoric of "don't retreat, reload" have made for a dangerous environment. With gaslines at the residence of a Congressman being cut, Congressmen being spit on and called lovely things like "fag" and "nigger" in the Capitol, and district offices being shot at (all of which occured during the healthcare debate) why is the shooting in Tucson a surprise? If it was a right-wingnut, he was just more committed than all of the others. If it was a left-wing extremist, maybe he felt that it was time to get his message across by using right-wing tactics. Again, regardless of his political leaning, we all know where the blame lies.

As for the Internet, here is a little bit of advice for you, Mrs. Palin. The next time you want to cover your ass or feed your ego, you may want to hire people who have enough common sense to leave the comments criticizing you on your Facebook page alone long enough for them to remove posts like Tina "How fucked up does a person have to be to spit on the grave of a 9 year old" King's:

"It's ok. Christina Taylor Green was probably going to end up a left wing bleeding heart liberal anyway. Hey, as 'they' say, what would you do if you had the chance to kill Hitler as a kid? Exactly."

As is typical, Mrs. Palin, you would rather be associated with a piece human excrement like Tina King than accept the criticism you so rightly deserve. Are you a completely out of touch, feeble-minded twit? You betcha!

And to Tina King, go fuck yourself! I hope your children meet with a worse fate than that of Christina Taylor Green's. Maybe then you will receive an inkling of the compassion that you obviously lack, you stupid cunt!