8 ms·

GPL Enforcement in Apple's App Store

177 points by chanux 16y ago

maxklein 16y ago
That sucks. So basically, Gnu is saying that nobody is allowed to develop for Apples platform with any GPLed code? That does not seem like freedom to me. The GPL knows that the software will be removed from the store. So they are basically killing it to support their philosophy. That's not freedom, that's just religious ideology. If I wrote code 10 years ago under the GPL and I want to release it now on the iPhone platform, I don't want a bunch of people to come tell me what to do or what not to do with the code I wrote. I did not sign up to a cult and have to follow their rules. When I can do what I want with my copy of my code, then that is freedom.
- asnyder 16y ago
  They're saying that if you want to use GPLed code, then you have to follow the GPL rules. Clearly the person writing that code decided to use a GPL license, instead of something more flexible like an MIT or BSD license. Thus it makes perfect sense that they force those that use that code comply with the license chosen. If they didn't, they would be doing a disservice to the code authors. If you don't like the license, don't use code that specifically chose to use that license. There are many alternatives to libraries out there, and as a last resort you can always write your own, original, non-GPLed code that performs a similar function. It's also my understanding that if the situation is such that you wrote the code, then you can change the license on the code you wrote and continue with that base, however, the original code is still GPLed and would remain open. [Updated for clarification]
  - spot 16y ago
    yea but most programs have some libraries. it seems unlikely that one entity will own all the code (unless you happen to be the FSF). unless the libraries are less-than GPL licensed and compatible with the App store terms, then you are stuck. it sounds to me that in many or even most circumstances, the GPL and the App store cannot mix unless Apple makes some allowances. it would be great to hear from the FSF exactly what would be required.
    - dedward 16y ago
      As long as the libraries aren't statically linked you are okay there... at least as far as libraries that are part of the stock system goes. (otherwise we'd never be able to build against, say, a differnet libc or anything like that) "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable."
- inklesspen 16y ago
  Certainly; if you wrote the code and still hold copyright, you can license it under whatever terms you wish. You can GPL it, but then turn around and release a proprietary version. You have this right _if_ you're the copyright holder. From what I can tell, the person who put this app on the App Store is not the copyright holder of GNU Go. (The FSF holds copyright to most of GNU Go's code, and they'd hardly offer an app on the App Store; and if they had, they could take it down without going through this mess.) So what we have here is someone who took someone else's code (which was made available under GPL) and then released a DRMed version of it. The FSF is saying you don't get to do that.
  - Vivtek 16y ago
    As long as the code is available, I don't see why the DRM should matter. As noted elsewhere in this thread, it would be great if the FSF could provide a more detailed analysis of what the AppStore distribution is lacking. As it is, it seems this would just make developers more worried about the GPL.
    - ElliotH 16y ago
      From what I understand, Apple is a distributor - not just the original developers. Because Apple is distributing they have the same responsibilities as any distributor to provide the source code and allow the code to be shared. And making people worried about the GPL shouldn't be a priority here. The GPL isn't a free-for-all license - its a very specific license which, while granting a lot of rights, also has a lot of requirements. Anybody distributing code with such a license needs to make sure they fall in line.
      - voidpointer 16y ago
        If the author of the app provided a link to a full source code download in the app itself and on the appstore page, wouldn't that make the whole thing compliant, at least in spirit, with the GPL? Everybody would be able to download the source, build/modify it themselves and run it in the emulator and if they have a developer certificate install it on their phone.
- edparcell 16y ago
  The FSF is saying that if the Apple Store wants to distribute a program covered by the GPL, they should comply with the GPL. Which seems reasonable. If you wrote code 10 years ago under the GPL, you retain the copyright, and may distribute the code or the program how you please under whatever license you like. Other people do not hold the copyright, and may not distribute your program under licenses of their choosing. People and companies do dual-license fairly commonly, allowing the free software community to use and develop their product, while retaining the ability to license it commercially. The FSF clearly does expect the software will be removed from the store, hence the linked communication. But they are not requiring it. This is somewhat more lenient than you might expect a commercial software vendor to be if their software was being illicitly distributed by Apple on the App Store. Hope this helped clear things up for you.
- Robin_Message 16y ago
  >#COMMENT FLAG: DELIBERATE MISINTERPRETATION > If I wrote code 10 years ago under the GPL ... > ... I did not sign up to a cult and have to follow their rules. When I can do what I want with my copy of my code, then that is freedom. If you released code under the GPL, then you released code under the GPL. This means other people can't do whatever they like with the code; instead they must follow the Gnu cult rules. However, copyright says you can do what you want with your copy of the code, including release it under whatever licences you like. The GPL protects the code and itself, but does not restrict the owner's right to release code under any additional other licenses (except IANAL but I don't think you can revoke a GPL license.)
- Natsu 16y ago
  > That sucks. So basically, Gnu is saying that nobody is allowed to develop for Apples platform with any GPLed code? They're saying that no one is allowed to sign away the user's rights by agreeing to something like the Apple Developer License, which allows the application to be distributed only through the App Store. How can someone who doesn't own the code ever agree to that? And if you're taking your own code, which you want to GPL, how can you GPL it while still agreeing to the Apple Developer License which says in Section 7.2 that you can't distribute the code, except via the App Store? What good would GPLing such an application do, when you wouldn't be allowed to give anyone the source or let them modify it? You can still use it on Apple devices where Apple does not restrict the use and development of code, of course, such as their general purpose computers. But yeah, you're not free to develop for the iPad or iPhone without following Apple's rules. And Apple's rules appear to be in conflict with the GPL. You can find further discussion of the incompatibilities here: http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/131752 http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/131752
  - againstyou 16y ago
    what do you wanted ? the iphone is a closed platform.
- Confusion 16y ago
  I did not sign up to a cult If you apply for, and receive, Timbuktan citizenship and the next year they pass a law you don't like, you, as one of their citizens, are subject to that law. You signed up for it. If you released code under the GPL: yes you did sign up for this 'cult'.
- boucher 16y ago
  Well, if you wrote the code, you own the copyright. You can release it under any license you wish. If other people wrote the code, then they've expressed their wishes through the terms of the GPL (which haven't really changed in the last decade), and those wishes include forbidding additional licensing agreements from being put on top of the GPL (which appears to be the objection in this case).
dangrover 16y ago
So even if you provide full source for your app, you can't have it on the app store period? Or would this person also be breaking the GPL if they simply uploaded a binary to their site?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- DXL 16y ago
  Providing the source code is one requirement of the GPL. Section 6 forbids imposing other restrictions, which the App Store license does.
pierrefar 16y ago
What I don't like about this post is that they explicitely say The primary problem is that Apple imposes numerous legal restrictions on use and distribution of GNU Go through the iTunes Store Terms of Service, which is forbidden by section 6 of GPLv2. I'd like to see them enumerate these legal restrictions and explain how they contravene the GPL. Don't leave us guessing. For reference, a copy of the GPL V2: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html Section 6:6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
- biaxident 16y ago
  If this is the case, then how is it any different to distribution through the Android store?
  - _delirium 16y ago
    I could be wrong, but I don't think the Android store applies any blanket license to downloaded apps, besides the implied "you may download and use this app". The disagreement here is that Apple adds a license to all apps that says you aren't allowed to decompile or reverse engineer them (among other things), and the GPL doesn't let anyone but the copyright holder add those kinds of additional restrictions. The Android developer distribution agreement says (http://www.android.com/us/developer-distribution-agreement.html http://www.android.com/us/developer-distribution-agreement.h...): 5.4 You grant to the user a non-exclusive, worldwide, and perpetual license to perform, display, and use the Product on the Device. If you choose, you may include a separate end user license agreement (EULA) in your Product that will govern the user’s rights to the Product in lieu of the previous sentence. So it sounds like Google doesn't add any new terms to apps besides whatever the app authors themselves say, so GPL apps are fine.
    - 16y ago
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
tlrobinson 16y ago
iPhone OS already contains GPL v2 code (at least libgcc and libstdc++) so presumably Apple is in compliance on that front. Is FSF suggesting that it's not enough for the developer to distribute the source code, and Apple must also distribute the source code of any 3rd party applications (which use GPL code) distributed via the App Store? GPL v2 doesn't contain the anti-tivoization clause that v3 does, so that can't be the problem. I don't know what else they could claim, it would be nice if they could clarify the specific violations.
- technomancy 16y ago
  Whoever distributes the code must comply with the license. By demanding the role of distributor, they're also taking responsibility that usually falls to the author.
  - tlrobinson 16y ago
    Would it be enough for the developer to bundle the source code (and license) within the application somehow, such that if the application is distributed (unmodified) it will automatically be in compliance?
    - cabalamat 16y ago
      No, because the end user can't modify and run the software, even with the source code, because Apple's locked-in hardware won't let him.
      - bena 16y ago
        The user can join the developer program and modify and run the software that way. Nothing is preventing that. That's what a lot of GPL advocates are missing here. The GPL doesn't specify how things are supposed to get done, only that they do get done. The GPL boils down to a couple of things: Make the source available and allow others to modify and redistribute it (as long as they follow the GPL). Nothing about bundling the source with the app or having access to the same avenues of distribution as the original author or even the same tools.
jwr 16y ago
The FSF should take a more active role in GPL violations overall. This is by far not the only one. See for example how Drobo completely ignores requests for source code, while spreading FUD about proprietary drivers: http://www.drobospace.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=935&pid=6816&highlight=gpl#pid6816 http://www.drobospace.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=935&... I'm not a fan of bashing Apple at every occasion, but a shakedown of phone software licensing would not hurt — it would actually clarify the situation (both for iPhone OS and Android) and perhaps force companies to change the terms of service somewhat. UPDATE: I double-checked and since my last request they actually posted an E-mail address where you can supposedly request the code. I did request the code and I'm waiting to see what happens. Also, for those who think this is fanaticism: I'm doing this, because the DroboShare is unreliable and lost my data by corrupting the entire Drobo volume. I need the code, because I want to check whether Drobo actually improved the Linux HFS+ code or not (I suspect not).
- p0ppe 16y ago
  The Drobo forums are only available to paying customers, but I did come across the following page; http://support.datarobotics.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/434 http://support.datarobotics.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/434 Seems you can request the code by e-mail. No idea why they'd like to know your company affiliation though.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    No idea why they'd like to know your company affiliation though. Marketing.
- wingo 16y ago
  The FSF is only in a position to "go after" Apple because it is the copyright holder of GNU Go. It does not hold copyright on Linux.
  - joe_the_user 16y ago
    The free software foundation takes the lead in GPL whether they hold the copyright or not - for example, the Linksys enforcement. http://www.technewsworld.com/story/43996.html http://www.technewsworld.com/story/43996.html (article written from a 'how much can you get away violating the GPL' - not my feelings but it make, the FSF is who comes after you).
kuahyeow 16y ago
A subtext here not mentioned is that FSF / GNU owns the copyright to GNU Go, hence they enforce their rights. Violations of GPL in other projects should be enforced by the copyright owners
- mtigas 16y ago
  Very good point. The cynic in me thinks that if Apple pulls GNU Go, it’ll be solely for the copyright issue. (Similarly, other GPL’d apps that may exist in the app store via unofficial ports or forks.) What’s Apple to lose if a user or developer of an open-source GPL’d application mistakenly pushes said application to the App Store? That is, until another a copyright holder or another developer calls foul. I’m interested to see how this plays out between the FSF and Apple. Some murky territory we’re getting into regarding Apple regulation on licensing & copyright claims.
yanowitz 16y ago
I think this is the app in question ("Go go"): http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/go-go/id300106575?mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/go-go/id300106575?mt=8 ("It's driven by the GNU Go 3.6 engine") I ran into a similar issue with a GNU Backgammon app. The publisher (who wasn't charging for the app) put up the source (https://svn.leozide.com/pocketbg/ https://svn.leozide.com/pocketbg/) after being asked but now that I'm looking at it, it doesn't appear to get linked to obviously on the site (I haven't checked inside the app).
demallien 16y ago
Is anyone aware of Apple going after somebody that distibutes the source code of their iPhone app? My interpretation (IANAL) of sectoin 7.2 of the Apple Developer License is that you are not allowed to distribute your apps anyway other than through the App store. But if you are distibuting the source code, as required by GPL v2, that doesn't seem to be infringing to me. Of course, maybe someone can point to an example of Apple harassing someone that was doing this. Of course, maybe the FSF is getting all upset about the fact that not just anyone can download code onto an iPhone., only those in the Apple Developer Program? Except I personally find that situation as similar to needing to have a piece of hardware to use software designed for that hardware. If I use GPL code that I have modified such that it will only run on a PS3, I'm not obliged to furnish users with a PS3...
- TallGuyShort 16y ago
  Although I think the FSF would love to see all of those things, the actual legal technicality that they have in mind is the requirement that whoever distributes the software (i.e. the App Store) is responsible for making the source code available also - which they just don't do.
  - demallien 16y ago
    I wonder if Apple actually counts as distributing the software in that case though. I mean, it wasn't Apple that used the GPLed software after all. I remember seeing Redhat on sale in a box in an electronics store in Australia 10 years ago, and I don't think anyone would hold that store responsible for the distribution of the source code - it was obviously Redhat that was responsible...
    - tghw 16y ago
      Not only do they distribute it, they profit from that distribution^. If they were just a "dumb pipe", like an ISP, then no, but they have an active hand in it. (^ Not that profiting from it is a conflict with the GPL, it just reinforces their status as a distributor.)
kd5bjo 16y ago
Presumably, the process of getting your app into the app store involves you licensing it to apple on some kind of standardized terms that allow them to sell it on your behalf. Thus, Apple is acting within their rights, and the original developer did something that they weren't allowed to do.
- abrahamsen 16y ago
  The contract with the submitter is not going to protect Apple. The submitter cannot grant Apple the right to distribute code belonging to someone else. At best, the contract can be used to show that Apple acted in good faith, and thus limiting the damages to be paid to the owner (here, the FSF). But since the FSF doesn't usually demand damages, that is not relevant for this case. The DMCA safe harbor provision (which protects sites like Hacker News) will not protect Apple either unless the application is free. In which case Apple should respond to a DMCA takedown notice.
sjwright 16y ago
Hang on, if the source wasn't distributed to Apple (it generally isn't), how can Apple be expected to comply? Sounds to me like Apple need to take the app off the store. Any failure here is the fault of the submitter failing to comply with the GPL; Apple is just an innocent victim.
- tghw 16y ago
  The source really isn't the problem. An app developer can put a link on the app page that has the source. I think the problems stem more from things like: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. Apple definitely imposes "further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted". I can't copy the game from my iPhone to my friend's iPhone. I can't even use a copy of the source without paying Apple more money for a dev license.
alain94040 16y ago
The issue is so much simpler than you all make of it. And Apple is essentially not liable or responsible. The developer is the one who may be doing something wrong. It goes like this: the developer enters into two separate agreements. One is with the open source community, as he is re-using code licensed under the GPL. Any modifications and new code that links to that open source code, he must re-publish in source code. Two, is the agreement with Apple to use the SDK and its APIs. Apple places restrictions on what you can say about the APIs (namely, that you can't say much at all:-). If the developer modifies GPL code and mixes it with confidential APIs from Apple, he is stuck. He can either publish the source, and Apple can go after him, or he can keep the source confidential, and the authors of the Open Source code can go after him since he is using their code without a license (copyright infringment). That's it. Apple is not particularly liable for what developers do. Of course, in practice, Apple being the company with big pockets, if I was trying to make a billion dollars from such a case, I'd sue Apple, not the poor Russian developer in their basement.
againstyou 16y ago
hey guys, look at the Id's DOOM classic for the iPhone. it's GPLed by John Carmack you can download via App Store you can download the full code http://www.idsoftware.com/doom-classic/ http://www.idsoftware.com/doom-classic/
tvon 16y ago
> (...) we want to resolve this situation as amicably as possible. Have they emailed the author to request that the app be pulled? That seems like the most obvious and efficient way to obtain the goal of getting the app out of the App Store.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  ..."the upstream developers for this port are also violating the GPL, and we are discussing this with them too."
  - tvon 16y ago
    Ah, that's what I get for skimming.
jsz0 16y ago
This is why I never liked the GPL. If someone wants to use GNU GO in their app suddenly they're on the hook for the political restrictions the GPL imposes even if they're making no significant modifications to it? In this case restricting their freedom to distribute their app where and how they want to. Of course you should adhere to the licenses you use it's just an interesting parallel track of software license restrictions. Looking at it purely from the perspective of using outside code, with a license you have no control over, the primary difference here is who dictates the terms to you. Apple or FSF. Either way they are going to dictate the terms.

177 points by chanux 16y ago

That sucks. So basically, Gnu is saying that nobody is allowed to develop for Apples platform with any GPLed code? That does not seem like freedom to me. The GPL knows that the software will be removed from the store. So they are basically killing it to support their philosophy. That's not freedom, that's just religious ideology. If I wrote code 10 years ago under the GPL and I want to release it now on the iPhone platform, I don't want a bunch of people to come tell me what to do or what not to do with the code I wrote. I did not sign up to a cult and have to follow their rules. When I can do what I want with my copy of my code, then that is freedom.

asnyder 16y ago
They're saying that if you want to use GPLed code, then you have to follow the GPL rules. Clearly the person writing that code decided to use a GPL license, instead of something more flexible like an MIT or BSD license. Thus it makes perfect sense that they force those that use that code comply with the license chosen. If they didn't, they would be doing a disservice to the code authors. If you don't like the license, don't use code that specifically chose to use that license. There are many alternatives to libraries out there, and as a last resort you can always write your own, original, non-GPLed code that performs a similar function. It's also my understanding that if the situation is such that you wrote the code, then you can change the license on the code you wrote and continue with that base, however, the original code is still GPLed and would remain open. [Updated for clarification]
- spot 16y ago
  yea but most programs have some libraries. it seems unlikely that one entity will own all the code (unless you happen to be the FSF). unless the libraries are less-than GPL licensed and compatible with the App store terms, then you are stuck. it sounds to me that in many or even most circumstances, the GPL and the App store cannot mix unless Apple makes some allowances. it would be great to hear from the FSF exactly what would be required.
  - dedward 16y ago
    As long as the libraries aren't statically linked you are okay there... at least as far as libraries that are part of the stock system goes. (otherwise we'd never be able to build against, say, a differnet libc or anything like that) "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable."
inklesspen 16y ago
Certainly; if you wrote the code and still hold copyright, you can license it under whatever terms you wish. You can GPL it, but then turn around and release a proprietary version. You have this right _if_ you're the copyright holder. From what I can tell, the person who put this app on the App Store is not the copyright holder of GNU Go. (The FSF holds copyright to most of GNU Go's code, and they'd hardly offer an app on the App Store; and if they had, they could take it down without going through this mess.) So what we have here is someone who took someone else's code (which was made available under GPL) and then released a DRMed version of it. The FSF is saying you don't get to do that.
- Vivtek 16y ago
  As long as the code is available, I don't see why the DRM should matter. As noted elsewhere in this thread, it would be great if the FSF could provide a more detailed analysis of what the AppStore distribution is lacking. As it is, it seems this would just make developers more worried about the GPL.
  - ElliotH 16y ago
    From what I understand, Apple is a distributor - not just the original developers. Because Apple is distributing they have the same responsibilities as any distributor to provide the source code and allow the code to be shared. And making people worried about the GPL shouldn't be a priority here. The GPL isn't a free-for-all license - its a very specific license which, while granting a lot of rights, also has a lot of requirements. Anybody distributing code with such a license needs to make sure they fall in line.
    - voidpointer 16y ago
      If the author of the app provided a link to a full source code download in the app itself and on the appstore page, wouldn't that make the whole thing compliant, at least in spirit, with the GPL? Everybody would be able to download the source, build/modify it themselves and run it in the emulator and if they have a developer certificate install it on their phone.
edparcell 16y ago
The FSF is saying that if the Apple Store wants to distribute a program covered by the GPL, they should comply with the GPL. Which seems reasonable. If you wrote code 10 years ago under the GPL, you retain the copyright, and may distribute the code or the program how you please under whatever license you like. Other people do not hold the copyright, and may not distribute your program under licenses of their choosing. People and companies do dual-license fairly commonly, allowing the free software community to use and develop their product, while retaining the ability to license it commercially. The FSF clearly does expect the software will be removed from the store, hence the linked communication. But they are not requiring it. This is somewhat more lenient than you might expect a commercial software vendor to be if their software was being illicitly distributed by Apple on the App Store. Hope this helped clear things up for you.
Robin_Message 16y ago
>#COMMENT FLAG: DELIBERATE MISINTERPRETATION > If I wrote code 10 years ago under the GPL ... > ... I did not sign up to a cult and have to follow their rules. When I can do what I want with my copy of my code, then that is freedom. If you released code under the GPL, then you released code under the GPL. This means other people can't do whatever they like with the code; instead they must follow the Gnu cult rules. However, copyright says you can do what you want with your copy of the code, including release it under whatever licences you like. The GPL protects the code and itself, but does not restrict the owner's right to release code under any additional other licenses (except IANAL but I don't think you can revoke a GPL license.)
Natsu 16y ago
> That sucks. So basically, Gnu is saying that nobody is allowed to develop for Apples platform with any GPLed code? They're saying that no one is allowed to sign away the user's rights by agreeing to something like the Apple Developer License, which allows the application to be distributed only through the App Store. How can someone who doesn't own the code ever agree to that? And if you're taking your own code, which you want to GPL, how can you GPL it while still agreeing to the Apple Developer License which says in Section 7.2 that you can't distribute the code, except via the App Store? What good would GPLing such an application do, when you wouldn't be allowed to give anyone the source or let them modify it? You can still use it on Apple devices where Apple does not restrict the use and development of code, of course, such as their general purpose computers. But yeah, you're not free to develop for the iPad or iPhone without following Apple's rules. And Apple's rules appear to be in conflict with the GPL. You can find further discussion of the incompatibilities here: http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/131752 http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/131752
- againstyou 16y ago
  what do you wanted ? the iphone is a closed platform.
Confusion 16y ago
I did not sign up to a cult If you apply for, and receive, Timbuktan citizenship and the next year they pass a law you don't like, you, as one of their citizens, are subject to that law. You signed up for it. If you released code under the GPL: yes you did sign up for this 'cult'.
boucher 16y ago
Well, if you wrote the code, you own the copyright. You can release it under any license you wish. If other people wrote the code, then they've expressed their wishes through the terms of the GPL (which haven't really changed in the last decade), and those wishes include forbidding additional licensing agreements from being put on top of the GPL (which appears to be the objection in this case).

dangrover 16y ago

So even if you provide full source for your app, you can't have it on the app store period? Or would this person also be breaking the GPL if they simply uploaded a binary to their site?

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
DXL 16y ago
Providing the source code is one requirement of the GPL. Section 6 forbids imposing other restrictions, which the App Store license does.

pierrefar 16y ago

What I don't like about this post is that they explicitely say The primary problem is that Apple imposes numerous legal restrictions on use and distribution of GNU Go through the iTunes Store Terms of Service, which is forbidden by section 6 of GPLv2. I'd like to see them enumerate these legal restrictions and explain how they contravene the GPL. Don't leave us guessing. For reference, a copy of the GPL V2: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html Section 6:6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

biaxident 16y ago
If this is the case, then how is it any different to distribution through the Android store?
- _delirium 16y ago
  I could be wrong, but I don't think the Android store applies any blanket license to downloaded apps, besides the implied "you may download and use this app". The disagreement here is that Apple adds a license to all apps that says you aren't allowed to decompile or reverse engineer them (among other things), and the GPL doesn't let anyone but the copyright holder add those kinds of additional restrictions. The Android developer distribution agreement says (http://www.android.com/us/developer-distribution-agreement.html http://www.android.com/us/developer-distribution-agreement.h...): 5.4 You grant to the user a non-exclusive, worldwide, and perpetual license to perform, display, and use the Product on the Device. If you choose, you may include a separate end user license agreement (EULA) in your Product that will govern the user’s rights to the Product in lieu of the previous sentence. So it sounds like Google doesn't add any new terms to apps besides whatever the app authors themselves say, so GPL apps are fine.
  - 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

tlrobinson 16y ago

iPhone OS already contains GPL v2 code (at least libgcc and libstdc++) so presumably Apple is in compliance on that front. Is FSF suggesting that it's not enough for the developer to distribute the source code, and Apple must also distribute the source code of any 3rd party applications (which use GPL code) distributed via the App Store? GPL v2 doesn't contain the anti-tivoization clause that v3 does, so that can't be the problem. I don't know what else they could claim, it would be nice if they could clarify the specific violations.

technomancy 16y ago
Whoever distributes the code must comply with the license. By demanding the role of distributor, they're also taking responsibility that usually falls to the author.
- tlrobinson 16y ago
  Would it be enough for the developer to bundle the source code (and license) within the application somehow, such that if the application is distributed (unmodified) it will automatically be in compliance?
  - cabalamat 16y ago
    No, because the end user can't modify and run the software, even with the source code, because Apple's locked-in hardware won't let him.
    - bena 16y ago
      The user can join the developer program and modify and run the software that way. Nothing is preventing that. That's what a lot of GPL advocates are missing here. The GPL doesn't specify how things are supposed to get done, only that they do get done. The GPL boils down to a couple of things: Make the source available and allow others to modify and redistribute it (as long as they follow the GPL). Nothing about bundling the source with the app or having access to the same avenues of distribution as the original author or even the same tools.

jwr 16y ago

The FSF should take a more active role in GPL violations overall. This is by far not the only one. See for example how Drobo completely ignores requests for source code, while spreading FUD about proprietary drivers: http://www.drobospace.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=935&pid=6816&highlight=gpl#pid6816 http://www.drobospace.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=935&... I'm not a fan of bashing Apple at every occasion, but a shakedown of phone software licensing would not hurt — it would actually clarify the situation (both for iPhone OS and Android) and perhaps force companies to change the terms of service somewhat. UPDATE: I double-checked and since my last request they actually posted an E-mail address where you can supposedly request the code. I did request the code and I'm waiting to see what happens. Also, for those who think this is fanaticism: I'm doing this, because the DroboShare is unreliable and lost my data by corrupting the entire Drobo volume. I need the code, because I want to check whether Drobo actually improved the Linux HFS+ code or not (I suspect not).

p0ppe 16y ago
The Drobo forums are only available to paying customers, but I did come across the following page; http://support.datarobotics.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/434 http://support.datarobotics.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/434 Seems you can request the code by e-mail. No idea why they'd like to know your company affiliation though.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  No idea why they'd like to know your company affiliation though. Marketing.
wingo 16y ago
The FSF is only in a position to "go after" Apple because it is the copyright holder of GNU Go. It does not hold copyright on Linux.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  The free software foundation takes the lead in GPL whether they hold the copyright or not - for example, the Linksys enforcement. http://www.technewsworld.com/story/43996.html http://www.technewsworld.com/story/43996.html (article written from a 'how much can you get away violating the GPL' - not my feelings but it make, the FSF is who comes after you).

kuahyeow 16y ago

A subtext here not mentioned is that FSF / GNU owns the copyright to GNU Go, hence they enforce their rights. Violations of GPL in other projects should be enforced by the copyright owners

mtigas 16y ago
Very good point. The cynic in me thinks that if Apple pulls GNU Go, it’ll be solely for the copyright issue. (Similarly, other GPL’d apps that may exist in the app store via unofficial ports or forks.) What’s Apple to lose if a user or developer of an open-source GPL’d application mistakenly pushes said application to the App Store? That is, until another a copyright holder or another developer calls foul. I’m interested to see how this plays out between the FSF and Apple. Some murky territory we’re getting into regarding Apple regulation on licensing & copyright claims.

yanowitz 16y ago

I think this is the app in question ("Go go"): http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/go-go/id300106575?mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/go-go/id300106575?mt=8 ("It's driven by the GNU Go 3.6 engine") I ran into a similar issue with a GNU Backgammon app. The publisher (who wasn't charging for the app) put up the source (https://svn.leozide.com/pocketbg/ https://svn.leozide.com/pocketbg/) after being asked but now that I'm looking at it, it doesn't appear to get linked to obviously on the site (I haven't checked inside the app).

demallien 16y ago

Is anyone aware of Apple going after somebody that distibutes the source code of their iPhone app? My interpretation (IANAL) of sectoin 7.2 of the Apple Developer License is that you are not allowed to distribute your apps anyway other than through the App store. But if you are distibuting the source code, as required by GPL v2, that doesn't seem to be infringing to me. Of course, maybe someone can point to an example of Apple harassing someone that was doing this. Of course, maybe the FSF is getting all upset about the fact that not just anyone can download code onto an iPhone., only those in the Apple Developer Program? Except I personally find that situation as similar to needing to have a piece of hardware to use software designed for that hardware. If I use GPL code that I have modified such that it will only run on a PS3, I'm not obliged to furnish users with a PS3...

TallGuyShort 16y ago
Although I think the FSF would love to see all of those things, the actual legal technicality that they have in mind is the requirement that whoever distributes the software (i.e. the App Store) is responsible for making the source code available also - which they just don't do.
- demallien 16y ago
  I wonder if Apple actually counts as distributing the software in that case though. I mean, it wasn't Apple that used the GPLed software after all. I remember seeing Redhat on sale in a box in an electronics store in Australia 10 years ago, and I don't think anyone would hold that store responsible for the distribution of the source code - it was obviously Redhat that was responsible...
  - tghw 16y ago
    Not only do they distribute it, they profit from that distribution^. If they were just a "dumb pipe", like an ISP, then no, but they have an active hand in it. (^ Not that profiting from it is a conflict with the GPL, it just reinforces their status as a distributor.)

kd5bjo 16y ago

Presumably, the process of getting your app into the app store involves you licensing it to apple on some kind of standardized terms that allow them to sell it on your behalf. Thus, Apple is acting within their rights, and the original developer did something that they weren't allowed to do.

abrahamsen 16y ago
The contract with the submitter is not going to protect Apple. The submitter cannot grant Apple the right to distribute code belonging to someone else. At best, the contract can be used to show that Apple acted in good faith, and thus limiting the damages to be paid to the owner (here, the FSF). But since the FSF doesn't usually demand damages, that is not relevant for this case. The DMCA safe harbor provision (which protects sites like Hacker News) will not protect Apple either unless the application is free. In which case Apple should respond to a DMCA takedown notice.

sjwright 16y ago

Hang on, if the source wasn't distributed to Apple (it generally isn't), how can Apple be expected to comply? Sounds to me like Apple need to take the app off the store. Any failure here is the fault of the submitter failing to comply with the GPL; Apple is just an innocent victim.

tghw 16y ago
The source really isn't the problem. An app developer can put a link on the app page that has the source. I think the problems stem more from things like: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. Apple definitely imposes "further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted". I can't copy the game from my iPhone to my friend's iPhone. I can't even use a copy of the source without paying Apple more money for a dev license.

alain94040 16y ago

The issue is so much simpler than you all make of it. And Apple is essentially not liable or responsible. The developer is the one who may be doing something wrong. It goes like this: the developer enters into two separate agreements. One is with the open source community, as he is re-using code licensed under the GPL. Any modifications and new code that links to that open source code, he must re-publish in source code. Two, is the agreement with Apple to use the SDK and its APIs. Apple places restrictions on what you can say about the APIs (namely, that you can't say much at all:-). If the developer modifies GPL code and mixes it with confidential APIs from Apple, he is stuck. He can either publish the source, and Apple can go after him, or he can keep the source confidential, and the authors of the Open Source code can go after him since he is using their code without a license (copyright infringment). That's it. Apple is not particularly liable for what developers do. Of course, in practice, Apple being the company with big pockets, if I was trying to make a billion dollars from such a case, I'd sue Apple, not the poor Russian developer in their basement.

againstyou 16y ago

hey guys, look at the Id's DOOM classic for the iPhone. it's GPLed by John Carmack you can download via App Store you can download the full code http://www.idsoftware.com/doom-classic/ http://www.idsoftware.com/doom-classic/

tvon 16y ago

> (...) we want to resolve this situation as amicably as possible. Have they emailed the author to request that the app be pulled? That seems like the most obvious and efficient way to obtain the goal of getting the app out of the App Store.

joe_the_user 16y ago
..."the upstream developers for this port are also violating the GPL, and we are discussing this with them too."
- tvon 16y ago
  Ah, that's what I get for skimming.

jsz0 16y ago

This is why I never liked the GPL. If someone wants to use GNU GO in their app suddenly they're on the hook for the political restrictions the GPL imposes even if they're making no significant modifications to it? In this case restricting their freedom to distribute their app where and how they want to. Of course you should adhere to the licenses you use it's just an interesting parallel track of software license restrictions. Looking at it purely from the perspective of using outside code, with a license you have no control over, the primary difference here is who dictates the terms to you. Apple or FSF. Either way they are going to dictate the terms.