4 ms·

Actually, from what the EFF is saying, you almost certainly may not port GNU Emacs to iPad or, for that matter, offer any derivative work of a GPL program in th

by dasht 16y ago

Actually, from what the EFF is saying, you almost certainly may not port GNU Emacs to iPad or, for that matter, offer any derivative work of a GPL program in the app store. If you agree to the terms of the App Store developer license, it appears that you would violate the GPL. See: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/iphone-developer-program-license-agreement-all http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/iphone-developer-progra...

joubert 16y ago
That's not what I suggested. Read my comment again.
kqr2 16y ago
App Store Only: Section 7.2 makes it clear that any applications developed using Apple's SDK may only be publicly distributed through the App Store, I think this is the most relevant section. Any distribution mechanism that bypasses Apple's app store is strictly verboten.
- joubert 16y ago
  So you can then still port it and install on your own device.
  - kqr2 16y ago
    In your original comment: make the code freely available so others with app store accounts can also build & install on their devices. If you make the code freely available so others can install it on their devices, then you would have a distribution mechanism that bypasses the app store. You can do it, however, it violates your agreement with apple.
    - joubert 16y ago
      Yes, I realized, after I writ my first comment, that sharing the source code would constitute an alternative distribution mechanism (if i just share with a couple of friends, does that constitute "public distribution"?). Hence, my comment to which you responded focused on the first part of my original comment, which pointed out that it is entirely possible for one, if one is so inclined, to port emacs and run on your device. Perhaps not practicable, but possible. EDIT: actually, I'm thinking about this some more: are you saying that iPhone source code (for code modules, frameworks, etc) available online are violating the prohibition on alternative distribution?
      - rsl7 16y ago
        hang on. Distributing an xcode project is not the same as distributing an app.
- chronomex 16y ago
  The GPL requires that the source code be made available to people to whom you distribute the program. It does not require that it be publicly availble for everyone in the whole world. Therefore, I believe that bundling the source code with the application, such that they are both purchased at once, would suffice.
- demallien 16y ago
  Not really, you're not distributing an app, you're distributing source code, which is not the same thing. Of course, IANAL...
joubert 16y ago
So all the open source iPhone code freely available online is in violation of the Apple agreement?
- dasht 16y ago
  "open source" ordinarily refers to code licensed under any of the licenses that are "approved" by the self-appointed board of the "Open Source Initiative". The license terms of those vary wildly and most of them do not give strong protections to users. What is more specifically at stake here is code licensed under one of the GNU free software licenses that may have wound up in iPhone apps. To my (non-lawyerly) eyes, any programs that include code derived from a third party's GPL or LGPL licensed code are likely being violated unlawfully.
  - joubert 16y ago
    My point was to challenge the assertion that making source code available for apps, libraries, frameworks, etc. that use the iPhone sdk, is in violation of the apple terms. Regarding L/GPL, which part do you think would be violated if one incorporated such code in an iPhone/ipad app, assuming one makes the resulting source code available? Lastly, my original comment pointed out that one can port emacs and run on your device. Nobody can stop you because nobody would know.
    - dasht 16y ago
      Other comments have pointed out some factors of the L/GPL problems but I'll point out some and repeat that have not been mentioned yet. Apps in the App Store are encumbered by Apple's right to disable use of the app by users who have already downloaded it. This is in clear violation of both GPL and LGPL. Apparently (again, per the EFF) an app sold through the App Store may not be free distributed by other means. Another clear violation. Also, you may not modify the app running on your apple device unless (and even then, only perhaps if) you sign the app dev agreement. That restriction on modifications is again in violation of GPL and LGPL (to, again, my non-lawyerly eyes and this is lay commentary, not legal advice). We shall see. I'm confident that as a matter of principle the FSF would not support or endorse ports to these devices but what the EFF's discoveries make me wonder about is the extent of app store programs that are currently being distributed in violation of some of the third party code they use. Finally, yes, I suppose that one may port GNU Emacs for personal use but, at the same time, it appears to me that one can not share the results lawfully, even with their friends. Taken to the extreme, perhaps everyone interested in running GNU Emacs (or XEmacs) on the iPad can do their own private port after paying Apple some money.

by dasht 16y ago

joubert 16y ago

That's not what I suggested. Read my comment again.

kqr2 16y ago

App Store Only: Section 7.2 makes it clear that any applications developed using Apple's SDK may only be publicly distributed through the App Store, I think this is the most relevant section. Any distribution mechanism that bypasses Apple's app store is strictly verboten.

joubert 16y ago
So you can then still port it and install on your own device.
- kqr2 16y ago
  In your original comment: make the code freely available so others with app store accounts can also build & install on their devices. If you make the code freely available so others can install it on their devices, then you would have a distribution mechanism that bypasses the app store. You can do it, however, it violates your agreement with apple.
  - joubert 16y ago
    Yes, I realized, after I writ my first comment, that sharing the source code would constitute an alternative distribution mechanism (if i just share with a couple of friends, does that constitute "public distribution"?). Hence, my comment to which you responded focused on the first part of my original comment, which pointed out that it is entirely possible for one, if one is so inclined, to port emacs and run on your device. Perhaps not practicable, but possible. EDIT: actually, I'm thinking about this some more: are you saying that iPhone source code (for code modules, frameworks, etc) available online are violating the prohibition on alternative distribution?
    - rsl7 16y ago
      hang on. Distributing an xcode project is not the same as distributing an app.
chronomex 16y ago
The GPL requires that the source code be made available to people to whom you distribute the program. It does not require that it be publicly availble for everyone in the whole world. Therefore, I believe that bundling the source code with the application, such that they are both purchased at once, would suffice.
demallien 16y ago
Not really, you're not distributing an app, you're distributing source code, which is not the same thing. Of course, IANAL...

joubert 16y ago

So all the open source iPhone code freely available online is in violation of the Apple agreement?

dasht 16y ago
"open source" ordinarily refers to code licensed under any of the licenses that are "approved" by the self-appointed board of the "Open Source Initiative". The license terms of those vary wildly and most of them do not give strong protections to users. What is more specifically at stake here is code licensed under one of the GNU free software licenses that may have wound up in iPhone apps. To my (non-lawyerly) eyes, any programs that include code derived from a third party's GPL or LGPL licensed code are likely being violated unlawfully.
- joubert 16y ago
  My point was to challenge the assertion that making source code available for apps, libraries, frameworks, etc. that use the iPhone sdk, is in violation of the apple terms. Regarding L/GPL, which part do you think would be violated if one incorporated such code in an iPhone/ipad app, assuming one makes the resulting source code available? Lastly, my original comment pointed out that one can port emacs and run on your device. Nobody can stop you because nobody would know.
  - dasht 16y ago
    Other comments have pointed out some factors of the L/GPL problems but I'll point out some and repeat that have not been mentioned yet. Apps in the App Store are encumbered by Apple's right to disable use of the app by users who have already downloaded it. This is in clear violation of both GPL and LGPL. Apparently (again, per the EFF) an app sold through the App Store may not be free distributed by other means. Another clear violation. Also, you may not modify the app running on your apple device unless (and even then, only perhaps if) you sign the app dev agreement. That restriction on modifications is again in violation of GPL and LGPL (to, again, my non-lawyerly eyes and this is lay commentary, not legal advice). We shall see. I'm confident that as a matter of principle the FSF would not support or endorse ports to these devices but what the EFF's discoveries make me wonder about is the extent of app store programs that are currently being distributed in violation of some of the third party code they use. Finally, yes, I suppose that one may port GNU Emacs for personal use but, at the same time, it appears to me that one can not share the results lawfully, even with their friends. Taken to the extreme, perhaps everyone interested in running GNU Emacs (or XEmacs) on the iPad can do their own private port after paying Apple some money.