7 ms·

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

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.
  - sigzero 16y ago
    Ok, I see the issue now. Thanks for clarifying that.
  - nkassis 16y ago
    Also, the users are free to obtain the source code recompile and run it on their phone at any time. While the iPhone requires a SDK license to be able to distribute the software to the phone and can only do so through the app store. I think this is their problem with apple and GNU Go. There is no way for the user to modify the application and run it on their phone.
    - dedward 16y ago
      No - requiring a commercial compiler & sdk wouldn't be a problem - this is a licensing issue - the terms under which the author of the iPhone application is re-distrubiting the app, through the iTunes store, cannot be possible under the terms of the GPL - so the author had no right to do distribute it in this way in the first place. You can write and trade GPL software on proprietary platforms, even platforms other people may never have access to - as long as you aren't contractually restricting them from re-using the code.
      - boucher 16y ago
        But again, it hasn't been made explicitly clear which terms are being violated. The GPL doesn't require that code be distributed along with binaries, only that code be made available upon request, and the manner for doing so be made clear. There's nothing about app store which prevents that. The section 7.2 clause in the SDK agreement seems troubling, but it also seems unenforceable. Not only have lots of people blatantly chosen to ignore this provision (see Wordpress), it doesn't seem like it would hold up under copyright law (but I'm not a lawyer).
        lutorm 16y ago
        It's not a source code issue. The GPL prohibits you from adding restrictions to further redistribution. The App store adds the restriction that you're not allowed to redistribute. Seems pretty clean cut to me.
stoney 16y ago
I suppose that the right to copy, distribute or modify the Program is not the same as the ability to do so. Apple could grant everyone the right to redistribute any GPL'ed apps, but it wouldn't make any practical difference because who could I distribute the app to?
- decode 16y ago
  who could I distribute the app to? Anyone with a jailbroken phone, right?
- endgame 16y ago
  Isn't this the "Tivoisation" problem that GPLv3 was meant to address?
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Precisely
abrahamsen 16y ago
In the case he doesn't read Hacker News, I suggest you contact Brett and ask him. He left contact information (including email) at the end of the article.
- Vivtek 16y ago
  Incidentally, I did so, and he said I was far from being the only one with this concern, and that they are preparing just such a statement.
  - biafra 16y ago
    It can be found here: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-...
Natsu 16y ago
Well, the EFF has a long list of the things they hate about Apple's licenses. The FSF pretty much sees eye-to-eye with them, so that seems like a good starting place. Here's the link: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/iphone-developer-program-license-agreement-all http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/iphone-developer-progra... After reading that, my best guess for the GPL violation would be Section 7.2, which "makes it clear that any applications developed using Apple's SDK may only be publicly distributed through the App Store." But the worst part for Apple, I would think, is the review. Even though it's not their fault that some developer submitted an infringing application, they approved it. IANAL, though, so I don't know exactly what Apple is on the hook for. My guess would be that Apple will pull the application and blame the developer, but I don't know where it'll go from there. It really seems like they're more interested in Apple than the developer, after all.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  IANAL, though, so I don't know exactly what Apple is on the hook for. The GPL applies to anyone who distributes a GPL product. Apple is the distributor.
  - sigzero 16y ago
    I am not sure that is going to fly though. Apple is the conduit in this case. The developer is still the distributor and has chosen to do so through the store.
    - DrSprout 16y ago
      Farmer : producer. Walmart : distributor. Car manufacturer : producer. Car dealership : distributor. Software developer : producer. Apple App Store : distributor.
      - sigzero 16y ago
        I don't think that scenario holds for the actual "license" and it would just make the GPL suck that much more if you try to hold Apple to something like that.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

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.
- sigzero 16y ago
  Ok, I see the issue now. Thanks for clarifying that.
- nkassis 16y ago
  Also, the users are free to obtain the source code recompile and run it on their phone at any time. While the iPhone requires a SDK license to be able to distribute the software to the phone and can only do so through the app store. I think this is their problem with apple and GNU Go. There is no way for the user to modify the application and run it on their phone.
  - dedward 16y ago
    No - requiring a commercial compiler & sdk wouldn't be a problem - this is a licensing issue - the terms under which the author of the iPhone application is re-distrubiting the app, through the iTunes store, cannot be possible under the terms of the GPL - so the author had no right to do distribute it in this way in the first place. You can write and trade GPL software on proprietary platforms, even platforms other people may never have access to - as long as you aren't contractually restricting them from re-using the code.
    - boucher 16y ago
      But again, it hasn't been made explicitly clear which terms are being violated. The GPL doesn't require that code be distributed along with binaries, only that code be made available upon request, and the manner for doing so be made clear. There's nothing about app store which prevents that. The section 7.2 clause in the SDK agreement seems troubling, but it also seems unenforceable. Not only have lots of people blatantly chosen to ignore this provision (see Wordpress), it doesn't seem like it would hold up under copyright law (but I'm not a lawyer).
      - lutorm 16y ago
        It's not a source code issue. The GPL prohibits you from adding restrictions to further redistribution. The App store adds the restriction that you're not allowed to redistribute. Seems pretty clean cut to me.

stoney 16y ago

I suppose that the right to copy, distribute or modify the Program is not the same as the ability to do so. Apple could grant everyone the right to redistribute any GPL'ed apps, but it wouldn't make any practical difference because who could I distribute the app to?

decode 16y ago
who could I distribute the app to? Anyone with a jailbroken phone, right?
endgame 16y ago
Isn't this the "Tivoisation" problem that GPLv3 was meant to address?
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Precisely

abrahamsen 16y ago

In the case he doesn't read Hacker News, I suggest you contact Brett and ask him. He left contact information (including email) at the end of the article.

Vivtek 16y ago
Incidentally, I did so, and he said I was far from being the only one with this concern, and that they are preparing just such a statement.
- biafra 16y ago
  It can be found here: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-...

Natsu 16y ago

Well, the EFF has a long list of the things they hate about Apple's licenses. The FSF pretty much sees eye-to-eye with them, so that seems like a good starting place. Here's the link: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/iphone-developer-program-license-agreement-all http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/iphone-developer-progra... After reading that, my best guess for the GPL violation would be Section 7.2, which "makes it clear that any applications developed using Apple's SDK may only be publicly distributed through the App Store." But the worst part for Apple, I would think, is the review. Even though it's not their fault that some developer submitted an infringing application, they approved it. IANAL, though, so I don't know exactly what Apple is on the hook for. My guess would be that Apple will pull the application and blame the developer, but I don't know where it'll go from there. It really seems like they're more interested in Apple than the developer, after all.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
IANAL, though, so I don't know exactly what Apple is on the hook for. The GPL applies to anyone who distributes a GPL product. Apple is the distributor.
- sigzero 16y ago
  I am not sure that is going to fly though. Apple is the conduit in this case. The developer is still the distributor and has chosen to do so through the store.
  - DrSprout 16y ago
    Farmer : producer. Walmart : distributor. Car manufacturer : producer. Car dealership : distributor. Software developer : producer. Apple App Store : distributor.
    - sigzero 16y ago
      I don't think that scenario holds for the actual "license" and it would just make the GPL suck that much more if you try to hold Apple to something like that.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]