[vlc-devel] FSF position on GPLv2 & current App Store terms

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 04:43:36PM +0100, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote :
> His attitude was not nice. I certainly did not appreciate my position being
> misrepresented to serve the political agenda of the FSF. However, I am
> sorry to say that you are the one spreading animosity in this thread.

I am answering to him, because I don't think he can come here and comment
without making apologies. And I am still waiting for those apologies.


> > Your methods and attitudes are not polite, but they are destructive and
> > dishonnest.
> 
> Fair, but so is your attitude.
OK about destructive, No about dishonnest. I was so far, the only one
that actually did an analysis and did not scream: "pull out! pull out!"

> (Disclaimer: yes, I know _I_ am the most impolite regular on this mailing
> list)
Then, I don't see why you morale me.

> > With those attitudes, do not wonder why people are moving away from Open
> > Source development and from the GPL licences...
> > https://www.ohloh.net/languages/compare?measure=loc_changed
> 
> Sorry but that is totally gratuitous and off-topic.

True, but not this part:
> > If I understand correctly, the FSF new policy is to blow up communities?


> > * Publicizing the issue to fit YOUR political agenda, without asking if
> > that was OK, _while_ the issue was being investigated, was not polite in
> > any way. Your analysis on this mailing list should have came BEFORE your
> > blog post.
> 
> Again, I would be morally entitled to say that.
> And given how much promotion you've given to MobileVLC via Twitter and the
> website before the so-called investigation, I find this statement is
> horrendously hypocritical.
_before_ as you say. As soon as the complaint was known, the matter was
different. As soon as I came back from SF, I mailed this mailing list
and on various media, that we will have a meeting about the issue.
Meeting we had on friday. I came back from GSoC summit on the 26th...

> You decided to provide plenty of PR for MobileVLC, even though you stated
> that this was a "gray area". You decided to take the risks anyway. I have
> already stated that I can understand why you did so. But please don't blame
> other people for what ultimately was consequence of your own actions.
Clearly not, we push on twitter many things, that are more or less
around VLC, being it VLC remotes and what not.
Moreover, Gray Area does not mean forbidden, AFAIK.

> FSF might not know, but VideoLAN developers do know and I think we are all
> thankful for your selfless efforts. But please cool down.
OK. Which is why my mail was addressed in answering FSF and to Brett,
that often comes to me to relay his FSF campaigns.

> > * About the dishonesty of your analysis. In your blog post, you refer to
> > the Gnu GO case (that was refered to in the first analysis of Rémi,
> > that originated the complaint, but that is irrelevant here), which is
> > totally irrelevant on the case here, since Apple changed its license.
> 
> I am not sure that is fair criticism. FSF says that GNU Go was pulled out
> through "a similar enforcement action against Apple", which is true. A
> license change makes no difference. In both cases, they were copyright
> enforcement actions.
Sorry, this is fair. They try to make the matters identical to confuse
people, when they are not.

> > Not to mention that the title is just misleading ('takes a stand against
> > DRM'). The complaint does not speak of DRM in any way.
> 
> I agree, and indeed I was similarly annoyed. But please don't flame the FSF
> on a public mailing on _my_ behalf for VLC's sake!

I have the right to show evidence when I say that their methods are wrong,
which is exactly the topic of my mail.

> > Moreover, in your post, you don't even speak about the relationship
> > between VLC, VideoLAN and Applidium, making it confusing enough that
> > all journalists and communities attack VideoLAN.
> 
> I have to agree, although it is probably partly my fault and I accept that
> blame.

And? A journalist or a so-called activist needs to verify their sources.
Which they didn't.


Best Regards,

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Kempf
http://www.jbkempf.com/
+33 672 704 734