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.