Respecting the LGPLv2.1 license terms when publishing an iOS app with MobileVLCKit

[Stw]

Hi,

I would like to publish an app on Apple App store that depends on MobileVLCKit and I want to make sure that I respect VLCs licensing terms.

Please let me know if the license terms of MobileVLCKit are respected in the following use case:

Use case begins:
I have an app which I would like to depend on MobileVLCKit. For that I try to dynamically link MobileVLCKit offered under LGPLv2.1 by adding the "MobileVLCKit.xcodeproj" as subproject of my app project and:
- Add to “Target dependencies” the “MobileVLCKit" and "DynamicMobileVLCKit"
- Add to “Link Binary With Libraries” the “DynamicMobileVLCKit”
- Add to “Copy Files” the “DynamicMobileVLCKit.framework”
Additionally.
1. I will not add changes to the MobileVLCKit library by linking it as described.
2. I will inform the users that the app is using the MobileVLCKit lib which comes under the LGPLv2.1 terms.
3. I will also give them a link to the source code of MobileVLCKit in order to comply with its LGPLv2.1 license.
Use case ends.

I have been reading everything I could about MobileVLCKit and what is required to respect the LGPL licensing terms when publishing an iOS app. However, the more I read about it the more unsure I become. Based on what I found on this forum it looks like MobileVLCKit licensing terms are meant to be compatible with the Apple App Store publishing terms.

However, the LGPL license requires that I enable the end user to replace the part of my app that comes under LGPL (MobileVLCKit) with an alternative library. The problem with this requirement is that the App store requires payment from its users in order to issue key certificates for them which allows them to modify an App Store application that can be deployed on their device. This comes in conflict with the license terms. Here you can find a more detailed discussion of why LGPL licenses are incompatible with the publishing conditions offered by Apple App Store: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/459 ... its-offici.

I am undecided on how to interpret MobileVLCKit’s license and I hope your informed opinion will help clarify if the use case listed above respects MobileVLCKit licensing terms.

Thank you,
Frol

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

You really should not ask for legal advice here.

[Stw]

Where should I discuss the licensing matters with a vlc representative ? I hope the answer to this question will also help the other developers interested in respecting VLC's licensing terms

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

There are literally hundreds of independent copyright holders on VLC, thousands on the entire package. Even if you could track all of them down, they have no obligations to answer your question, nor are they (for the most part) qualified to do so.

I mean, ultimately, the whole point of open-source licenses is not to have to go ask every single copyright holder.

Your questions are for a qualified legal specialist, not an open-source developer.

[Stw]

I think this matter is important for all honest iOS developers as well as for the authors of MobileVLCKit. If the LGPLv2.1 license under which MobileVLCKit is released is compatible with the publishing conditions on Apple App store all such potential iOS developers would benefit from knowing what exactly they need to do in order to comply with the license. But the fact that no one qualified tried to answer this question might mean that no one knows how to do it properly or that my legal counselor is right and the LGPLv2.1 license is not compatible with the publishing terms of Apple App store. I am reluctant to believe that, and this is why I came here to ask the experienced people that have already dealt with the issue.

I do not want to believe that MobileVLCKit developers would put the effort into developing an awesome library specifically for iOS and then release it under a license that would make it unusable on the Apple store. Unfortunately, so far, I have not found a way to make the LGPLv2.1 license compatible with the App Store publishing terms. Also the list of iOS apps that use MobileVLCKit in a disclosed manner is very short(https://wiki.videolan.org/VLCKit/) and I wonder how many of those apps do it properly and are not at infringement risk... So you can see that there is a real problem which we hope to solve with the help of people who have already dealt with the problem.

But Remi, I am talking specifically about deploying MobileVLCKit on iOS Apple App store and none of your answers try to answer my question. So why bother writing? I do not twist anyone's hand for an answer. I came here to find help for myself and many others. If you do not know how to help it's OK but it is not OK to suggest that no one is willing to help. In fact there are studies showing that most people feel good helping with some obvious exceptions.

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

I was trying to warn you that you should not trust any answer here, and now you're complaining that I'm not answering.

Pretty ingrate IMO. I give up.

[Stw]

Thanks Remi, im glad you think you're helping. Warning me about the answers that do not exist is quite ... interesting.

However it would be great if someone could try to address the one licensing question in the top message.