"You agree that the terms of the Licensed Application End User License Agreement will apply to each Apple Product and to each Third-Party Product that you license through the App Store Service, unless the App Store Product is covered by a valid end user license agreement entered into between you and the licensor of the App Store Product (the “Licensor”), in which case the Licensor’s end user license agreement will apply to that App Store Product."
Read the unless part...
Oh, of course, it is better to make a political statement that doesn't even read the AppStore terms... Not to mention that VLC is GPLv2 not GPLv3...
The FSF addressed that back when GNU Go was the program getting pulled. They pointed to the section in the terms that said this:
The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect
to the Products, in addition to any other terms or
rules that may have been established between you
and another party.
They noted that it said it was in addition to any other terms between you and another party, and so the Usage Rules still applied EVEN IF the license of a particular program said otherwise.
However, looking at the latest version of the rules you cited (which is the same link the FSF cited), I don't see that language. The FSF published their more detailed explanation of the GNU Go problem, including the above explanation of why the Usage Rules still apply, on May 26th, and Apple updated the terms on June 21st.
On first glance, it appears that Apple may have in fact addressed the problem and GPL software is OK on the store after all.
The real question is how did Apple's QA that checks apps for the store not catch the problem beforehand? VLC is easy to Google, and GPL 2 license isn't tricky to find. I'm sure Apple has plenty of lawyers and computer people that are involved in checking licenses, so they should have either an argument stating why they believe they are in compliance, or they shouldn't have let the app in.
If there's a problem, why was the app submitted? Did the problem appear after the app was submitted? If not, if the problem existed at the time the app was submitted, then the app ought not to have been submitted.
"That's because we went through a similar enforcement action against Apple when we learned that a port of GNU Go (which is copyrighted by the FSF) was being distributed through the App Store. Unfortunately, Apple chose to make the issue go away by simply removing the software from the App Store".
The FSF told Apple that distributing a port of GNU Go on the Apple store violated the copyright of GNU Go. Apple stopped distributing it. It is pretty ridiculous of the FSF to say it is "unfortunate" that Apple chose to stop distributing it.
Of course it is unfortunate. Apple had two choices; stop distributing it, or distribute it in a way which complies with the license. The FSF would prefer the latter; they are disappointed when people choose the former. Telling people to stop distributing it because it is infringing copyright to do so is the stick, and the software distributed under the proper license is the carrot, to try and promote software freedom. The FSF would much rather have people be able to run GNU Go under the terms of the GPL, than not be able to run it at all.
The problem isn't lack of source. Most GPL programs that have appeared on the App Store have included a way to get the source satisfactory for GPL purposes.
The problem is with the terms of use of the store. When an end user tries to use the store, the end user has to agree to certain terms, including that they will not reverse engineer anything they download, they will not copy it, and other terms of that kind.
When a developer offers his program through the store, he provides a copy to Apple. When an end user purchases the program, Apple makes a copy and provides it to the user. Hence, from a copyright point of view, Apple is making and distributing copies of the program, and so Apple needs permission of the copyright owner.
If the program is GPL, Apple has to obey GPL to get that permission. GPL prohibits imposing additional restrictions on the GPL code you distribute. Apple's end user terms of service are additional terms.
Hence, it is not possible to distribute GPL code through the Apple store unless you grant Apple an exception allowing them to impose their additional terms. If it is the copyright owner who is making the app, that is not a problem. However, if they use anyone else's GPL code, and that third party coder has not granted Apple an exception, then the app cannot be distributed via the store.
Interesting you think Apple made the problem "go away". If I was distributing copies of The Hurt Locker from my website and someone took me to court, you can be pretty sure my problems wouldn't just "go away" if I took down the website.
All they would have to do is follow the license's conditions to help keep the software free. Instead, Apple has decided that they prefer to impose Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) and proprietary legal terms on all programs in the App Store, and they'd rather kick out GPLed software than change their own rules. Their obstinance prevents you from having this great software on Apple devices—not the GPL or the people enforcing it.
I don't think Apple is the only one being obstinate here. The App Store definitely defines strict terms about how an app can be distributed, but so does the GPL.
The GPLs rules are only about preserving end-user freedom (including the freedom to modify and redistribute software). Saying that the GPL has "strict rules" and is thus the same as the App Store is like saying that putting someone in jail for kidnapping is just as bad as kidnapping in the first place, because you're restricting someone's freedom. Yes, laws and jail for kidnappers restrict their freedom, but they only constrain you from taking someone else's freedom away.
Likewise, the GPL only restricts you from things you do that take away other people's freedom. If Apple just allowed its end users to have the freedom required by the GPL, there would be no conflict.
No, the GPL defines explicit restrictions about what the end user can and can't do with the software. In my book, that's less freedom.
Now, my tenet is just as flimsy as your tenet -- can't you see that your definition of "freedom" is flexible between people and that your freedom may not be another person's freedom? Because degrees of freedom are a subjective and relative interpretation all we can say objectively is that both the GPL and the App Store's EULA have restrictions and they both attempt to preserve an ecosystem that they see to be beneficial.
Distributing software is something you "do" with the software. If I meant restricting the use of the software I would have said restricting the use of the software.
The GPL doesn't restrict distributing software. Copyright does; without the GPL, you would not be allowed to copy the software at all, due to copyright laws that cover all creative works from the moment they are created, regardless of whether anyone opts in. The GPL grants you additional freedom to distribute the software, as long as you follow their rules.
Now, it doesn't grant as much additional freedom as, say, the MIT license, but the only freedoms it fails to grant you are the freedom to take someone else's freedom away. You can do anything you want with the software, as long as you don't do something that limits someone else's freedom to do the same.
Why can't VLC change their license to something that works with Apple's App Store license agreement. Clearly the VLC developers wanted Apple to distribute their Application because why was it otherwise created and put up on the App Store in the first place?
In theory, they could. I suspect that, practically, that's not going to be possible. I don't know all the details, but I imagine it'd mean going to every contributor and getting some kind of statement that they are allowing their code to be relicensed under a new license. That'd be pretty nasty. I believe Squeak Smalltalk went through something like this and it took years.
This isn't much of a stand, IMO. Apple will just pull it unceremoniously.
Those who loved having it on their devices lose. VLC loses "customers." The GPL loses by looking worse than Apple's own rules. Apple loses by looking as if their approval process failed to catch yet another edge case.
So, you would rather have Apple win, and everyone else lose, by allowing Apple to simply distribute any software the want under their own terms, without regard to the licensing terms its creator licenses it under? You would rather have Apple win, and users lose, by Apple getting free software to distribute on their platform while still being allowed to lock their users down?
The FSF (and the VLC developers in question) would rather have their software distributed in the App Store, as long as Apple complies with the terms of the license. The Android Market has no problems with this (and even if it did, you can install apps that you don't get from the Market on an Android phone).
By locking users down, not allowing them to install their own software except through the App Store, and not allowing applications to be distributed under licenses of their creators choosing in the App Store, Apple is limiting the software that users can use on their phone. Apple seems to have a policy of ignoring free software licenses in their app review process, until the developer actually complains, but the fact that they ignored and violated the license despite their draconian review process, and only pulling software once someone complains, seems calculated to allow them to blame the developers for the app's removal (as you are doing) rather than the blame being placed on their own policies, which are the real reason that users's freedom is restricted.
Apple does not agree to abide by your terms. Instead, by clicking "I Agree" when you submit a new app, you (app submitter) is agreeing to abide by Apple's terms. That's an important distinction in this case. It's irrelevant if you'd like Apple to change their polices. (Though they may some day - they've changed and relaxed many things over the years.) The point is that someone told Apple they had all legal permissions required to allow Apple to distribute it the way they do, and since there was an actual legal contract involved, Apple trusted that person. That person was apparently mistaken. It is that person whom the FSF and/or the VLC dev should be angry about - not Apple. (At least in this case.)
Yes, Apple's policies are calculated. That doesn't make them evil nor does it make them necessarily wrong. It sounds to me like you want your (GPL, etc) rules to trump Apple's rules. What gives you that right? The App Store is huge, popular, and everyone wants a piece of it. Apple created that success for themselves. You (or anyone else) has no basis to rush in and claim they deserve their own little slice of it just because. You play by Apple's rules until Apple changes their rules or don't play at all. Don't like it? Go somewhere else - that's your right which is given in exchange for Apple having the right to make their own rules.
No, it is Apple you should be upset at. They're the ones who set up the store which requires everything to be distributed under their EULA, and they're the ones who don't allow you to install any software in any other way.
If you take away one of those restrictions, great! If the App Store isn't the only way of getting software onto my own hardware, then they can have whatever policies they want; I can just get the software from elsewhere (see, for instance, Android). Or, if they actually abided by the terms of any free software licenses for software they distributed, well, less fine (I still would like to be able to get my software from elsewhere), but they're at least complying with the terms of those licenses.
So yes, it's disappointing that someone clicked "agree" to something they couldn't legally agree to, because it violated the terms under which they were distributing free software. But Apple is the one here who is significantly restricting end-user freedom; and the point of this sort of enforcement of the GPL is to get the point across that free software developer will not let Apple benefit from being able to distribute said free software without complying with the terms of the license.
Apple benefits from having a better selection of software in the App Store; if I can play my videos on an Android phone, but not an iPhone, that might help me decide in favor of Android. They shouldn't be able to benefit from this without complying with the terms of the license. There are several free software packages (like VLC, GNU Go, and more) that they could benefit from, but should not be able to until they stop restricting end user freedom.
I am not trying to get "my" rules to trump Apples. I am trying to say that if Apple wants to benefit from my work, then they must play by my rules. I don't use or develop for iPhone for just this reason; because Apple isn't willing to play by a set of rules that I agree with. I have an Android phone; while it isn't perfect in respecting end-user freedom (it doesn't come with root, and rooting it voids your warranty), it is a heck of a lot better (I also use a Mac, for instance, which while much of the software is not free, Apple does not restrict what software I can an cannot run on my own machine, which I consider an acceptable compromise).
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.
He's "taking a stand against Apple", but ISTM the real offender here is about the company that built an app with his code and submitted it to the store in breach of his license.
The point is that the developer wants developers to build apps with his code and distribute it. So he's complaining about the entity responsible for limiting distribution. He has no problem with the company that built the app.
Of course reading motives into people's heads is prone to error, but it's implied by his choice of the GPL...
Maybe he has no problem with the company that built the application, but the company submitted the application to the App Store knowing that the App Store's conditions would violate the GPL.
You cannot force GPL down Apple's throat. It is their application store. If their terms are not compatible with your license, change your license or live with it. By picking the GPL you are excluding some distribution venues.
In the meanwhile, the VideoLAN project is still endorsing the iOS application on their website. So, they are sending copyright infringement notices, while at the same time encouraging people to buy it?
Which is exactly what he's doing. He could have let the original infringement slip quietly by, but instead he's using it to make a political point. Everybody loses short term, but he's hoping for long term gains.
Someone who submitted the app agreed that Apple's terms were fine and the developer could legally distribute the software in the manner the app store does. It probably would have been better not to submit it at all.
It's very unfortunate that some devs spent much of their time porting vlc on iOS so it could be yanked by another dev kicking up a fuss over a technicality, in my opinion...
I hate apple's fascism as much as the next guy, but I don't see how the app store practically violates the GPL. Is it because it has no "download source" button? You can get it easily enough at the dev's site...
There may be other complexities to it, but I never thought the GPL v2 explicitly forbad DRM signed apps. Also it was my understanding that providing the source could be a URL, which is the easiest for everyone involved, but you could also provide it upon request by mailing a CDR and still be compliant. The GPL does not require that the source be included with the distribution of the program, just that the source is available to anyone who gets the compiled program.
* VLC for iOS was ported by a 3rd party, not by the VLC developers
* VLC and most included libraries are licensed under GPLv2 which has specific requirements around redistribution and rights of users/developers
* Apple's app store policies are in violation of the terms outlined in GPLv3 (see: anti-Tivoization clauses) so software with any GPLv3 components can not be released in the app store
* Apple's app store policies also used to (and may still) be in violation of the terms outlined in GPLv2 so software with any GPLv2 components can not be released in the app store. The FSF did an analysis of the older App Store rules and determined that they were incompatible with v2 and v3 licensed code. They have not re-examined the new policy but some developers believe it is still incompatible with v2 as well as v3.
* The code in VLC itself is not owned by a VLC organization. Like most GPL projects, it is owned by the individual contributors.
* Rémi Denis-Courmont has written code that is included in VLC and is used in the iOS port and believes this was done in violation of GPLv2 (and, thus, copyright law). Some other VLC developers agree with him.
* Some VLC developers disagree with Rémi's interpretation
* Some VLC members have been accused of trying to censor Rémi's posts on the topic by removing his RSS feed from the VLC meta-feed
It would be more accurate to state that "the VLC website maintainers have linked to it". It is disingenuous to say VLC "approves" of it as some developers, including Rémi Denis-Courmont, do not and see it as a GPL and copyright violation. Remember, Rémi is one of the core developers (and the top contributor to VLC according to Ohloh's stats: https://www.ohloh.net/p/vlc/contributors ), so saying 'VLC approves of the iOS port' is just incorrect.
I know that in an open source project there are individual opinions. But you would think that if something is listed on the website, it is trustable information, provided by the project. If not, what is the project's official source of information?
The opinion of the operator of the website is not necessarily representative of the developers. And the project leaders don't own the copyright to Remi's thousands of contributions, so they can't choose to re-license it or give Apple permission to release the app under any additional licensing or obligations above and beyond the exact stipulations of the GPL.
The FSF would not recommend using an iPhone at all, in its present state. They have instead recommended phones such as the FreeRunner: http://www.openmoko.com/freerunner.html
I'm not familliar with the AppStore's terms, but VLC is licensed under the GPLv2. This means that the distribution of a derived work must be accompanied by a copy of the license text, and a reference to a place where the recipient (the user) can download the source code.
If the app submitted to the AppStore does both of these things, I don't see any violation.
Of course, you can't just change the source code and then run the modified app on your iPhone, but you can't do that for a Linux-based router either.
The GPL gives Apple permission to distribute this software through the App Store. All they would have to do is follow the license's conditions to help keep the software free.
vs.
"Apple gives developers the ability to distribute this software through the AppStore. All they would have to do is follow the EULA's conditions to help keep the software free"
Reminds me of the US political system. Opposing philosophical views but the they're both using the same tactics. Follow our rules because we know what's best for you.
There appears to be a consensus forming within the VLC dev community that Apple does, in fact, enable 3rd party licensing such as GPLv2 to supersede the AppStore EULA.
Ultimately, this appears to be an unfortunate situation at Videolan as the method this all came out was probably not ideal (minimal or zero internal discussion prior to an individual contributor sending a copyright violation notice to Apple, posting to a videolan.org server announcing the notice with little or no indication of the notice not being directed by videolan.org, etc.).
The concerns I've seen re: PR on this mess shouldn't be taken lightly. One of my first reactions before digging in further was: so Videolan submitted their app, got it approved and now they're yelling at Apple about copyrights because it was approved? Clearly, that is not even close to the situation, but try and tell that to the thousands of headline skimmers.
That mailing list issue only covers the user terms, ie the terms applying to the person who downloads an app via the App Store.
The more relevant terms are those applying to the submission of applications to the App Store. Like, the part where you agree not to submit an app that can't be distributed under the terms of the App Store.
I highly doubt the submission terms contradict the App Store terms. Or do you have a source which shows that the submission terms state that 3rd party licenses are not accepted (and therefore apps based on GPLv2 source cannot be distributed)?
It's a pass through clause.
GPLv2 would only be prohibited from distribution via the App Store if the App Store terms did not include the ability for a submitter's GPLv2 to supersede the App Store license.
3rd party licenses are acceptable if they're compatible with Apple's terms.
Does the GPL attempt to force Apple to do anything, like distribute app source code, or distribute an app without DRM? If so it isn't compatible.
It's very simple. You're not supposed to submit an app that makes Apple legally liable to fulfill the requirements of a license. You, the submitter, have to fulfill all the license's requirements yourself, without Apple being involved.
If your app uses something with a license fee, you have to pay it, you can't have the licensor bill Apple for it. If there's a contract with a rights holder, you have to sign it, Apple doesn't sign the contract.
The app has to be unencumbered and safe for Apple to distribute via the App Store, with the App Store's policies and methods. If the license requires action on Apple's part to be in compliance, You Shouldn't Submit The App because it's not compatible with the App Store.
(Examples of "license requires action on Apple's part":
1. If Apple would be required by your app's licensing to distribute the app without DRM, it's not compatible with the App Store. DRM was part of the deal. App submitters know that going in.
2. If Apple would be required by your app's licensing to distribute the app's source code, it's not compatible with the App Store. Apple-distributed source is not part of the deal. App submitters know that going in.)
I assume the 3rd party licenses the end-user agreement is mostly talking about are things like content licenses, like art and other media in movie tie-in games. Or books downloaded into the kindle app.
A kindle book is probably licensed from the author to the publisher, and the publisher to Amazon for distribution rights, and from Amazon to the end user who buys it. That's a lot of 3rd party licenses, that are compatible with the App Store.
Because Apple has nothing better to do than to deal with developers submitting apps with all kinds of idiosyncratic hoops for Apple to jump through.
"Oh, you can distribute this, as long as you do x, y, and z to be in compliance with the GPL license." "Oh, you can distribute this, as long as you put the app icon on theh apple.com front page." "Oh, you can distribute this, as long as you send Richard Stallman a signed glossy photo of Steve Jobs." "Oh, you can distribute my app, Apple just has to distribute my source code on the Lion install disk."
> Because Apple has nothing better to do than to deal with developers submitting apps with all kinds of idiosyncratic hoops for Apple to jump through.
And how would those nasty developers like it if Apple suddenly introduced all kinds of idiosyncratic hoops to the app submission process for the developers to jump through?
Why, they'd have no grounds to complain, that's for sure!
It's Apple's store, they get to set the rules for their store. I have no problem with that. I may grumble at the rules they choose, but I'm not going to cry about it.
Little developers don't have much leverage. That's life. BFD. In the grand scheme of things, it's not a big deal. If the worst thing that happens in your life this year is that your app falls afoul of some persnickety little Apple rule, you're still living better than the vast majority of the humans on the planet who would LOVE to be so afflicted.
> It's Apple's store, they get to set the rules for their store. I have no problem with that. I may grumble at the rules they choose, but I'm not going to cry about it.
Conversely, a GPL'd program is the author's work, and if some other developer submits it to the app store, the author is perfectly within his rights to waste Apple's time and demand either GPL compliance or removal.
> Little developers don't have much leverage.
Except when they do; such as when Alice submits Bob's GPL'd program to the App Store. If Bob cares more about enforcing his rights than having his program in Apple's virtual toy store, he's got plenty of leverage.
And if Apple has to spend time and money taking down apps as a cost of maintaining its own bizarre and finicky rules (which cost 3rd-party developers plenty of time and money), then it's exactly what Apple deserves. Poetic justice, even.
> That's life. BFD. In the grand scheme of things, it's not a big deal.
In the grand scheme of things, humans are a tiny dot in an infinite cosmos. In the human scheme of things, it may matter a great deal whether we end up with neutered app dongles instead of real computers in our pockets.
> If the worst thing that happens in your life this year is that your app falls afoul of some persnickety little Apple rule, you're still living better than the vast majority of the humans on the planet who would LOVE to be so afflicted.
There are (at least!) two fallacies in your argument: Apple's bad behavior is justified (1) because there are worse things; (2) because the harm it does to anyone is not sufficient to reduce them to desperate, third-world, dollar-a-day, tapeworms,-warlords,-and-cholera-level poverty.
I maintain that Apple's behavior is not justified, and I choose to forgo their iOS platform and its attendant riches. So far, I've been able to subsist on more than a dollar a day, cholera-free!
The GPL is the most widely used software license in the world, so you know Apple is familiar with it. If they chose to create rules in their app store that are incompatible with it, it would be hard to argue that they did so without being familiar with the GPL and how the rules are incompatible.
Apple is very familiar with the GPL. Their NeXT veterans tried to withhold the ObjC frontend they added to GCC, and only met their obligations under legal threat.
The matter is way more complex, and it seems that the latest Apple Store terms are indeed compatible with the GPLv2 if you use a few precautions.
See http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html#APPS "LICENSE OF APP STORE PRODUCTS" part
"You agree that the terms of the Licensed Application End User License Agreement will apply to each Apple Product and to each Third-Party Product that you license through the App Store Service, unless the App Store Product is covered by a valid end user license agreement entered into between you and the licensor of the App Store Product (the “Licensor”), in which case the Licensor’s end user license agreement will apply to that App Store Product."
Read the unless part...
Oh, of course, it is better to make a political statement that doesn't even read the AppStore terms... Not to mention that VLC is GPLv2 not GPLv3...