This is much more about a single VLC developer spitefully griefing the others than the GPL.
The only reason he has grounds to send C&D letters to Apple is because he holds copyright over his contributions to VLC. The other developers don't give a shit that the Apple-distributed binaries aren't redistributable by default, given that the iOS port is still fully open source and is trivially redistributable/compilable on jailbroken devices.
I have trouble believing an entire project is using the GPL yet almost nobody cares whether most users are getting stuck with unmodifiable binaries. And what about reused libraries? I don't believe I have any code in VLC, but if I did I'd be livid if they decided it'd be okay to contribute it to Apple's dystopian nightmare against my express wishes.
> I have trouble believing an entire project is using the GPL yet almost nobody cares whether most users are getting stuck with unmodifiable binaries.
If a project is initially started under the GPL, it's stuck that way forever even if they get all-new developers after a while who don't care. If a project is started by someone new to the area, the FSF and supporters are vocal enough that there's a decent chance they'll pick the GPL by default without really considering it. If a project links to a GPL library, there's a decent chance they'll bow to pressure of the FSF's overbroad redefinition of "derivative work" and (re-)license their project as GPL regardless of their own preferences.
It's all quite self-reinforcing and doesn't require reasoned intent from any of the participants.
I agree that it sounds more like one developer trying to pee in the porridge pot than a genuine licence problem.
For all the people screaming about how GPL forces X, Y and Z, there is a really simple solution that has been tried and proven to work before:
just DUAL LICENCE
A dual licence allows you to work inside the GPL walled garden, and also outside of it in the real world. You can literally have the best of both worlds. It preserves maximum freedoms for the users.
What it doesn't do is advance the agenda of the GPL, which is to create a self contained and self sufficient ecosystem consisting solely of the GPL. So when dual licencing you can say, well, we're not at that utopian programmer's paradise yet, so it doesn't matter, but the less commitment people have to a strong GPL, the longer it will take to reach that ideal world.
The only reason he has grounds to send C&D letters to Apple is because he holds copyright over his contributions to VLC. The other developers don't give a shit that the Apple-distributed binaries aren't redistributable by default, given that the iOS port is still fully open source and is trivially redistributable/compilable on jailbroken devices.