3 ms·
Did you read the root post in this thread? Why do you need to do this? I'm trying to honestly engage with the ideas presented here, and what's clear to you isn
by jacobian 16y ago
Did you read the root post in this thread?
Why do you need to do this? I'm trying to honestly engage with the ideas presented here, and what's clear to you isn't clear at all to me. Why do you assume I'm operating in bad faith?
Apple is not a dumb pipe. They are hosting the software.
Clearly, and clearly it's an important difference. But I'm not so sure where the legal line is drawn.
What about SourceForge? They have a EULA, right? Have they carefully written one that's compatible with the GPL? Or what about language package hosts like RubyGems, PyPI, or CPAN? Do they need to be careful about any terms and conditions to avoid violating GPL'd apps placed on their repositories?
I'm not a lawyer -- are you? -- and I certainly don't claim to be an expert here. But even if you think I'm an idiot the fact is I actually know quite a good deal about copyright and software licensing, and I still don't see what the FSF's particular legal argument is. And I do want to understand their argument, especially as it applies to other types of "app stores" that might distribute open source code on behalf of other users.
- stcredzero 16y agoI can see a need to clarify this. A website might easily be little more than an ad-supported clearing-house. It would be little more than a "dumb pipe."
- sophacles 16y agoI think there is a certain amount of laugh test failure to the "ISP is distributing too!" argument. I see it as akin to the USPS and FedEx being required to pay royalties to the music companies for distributing the music. As for what the FSF is arguing, it is that iTunes has a blanket license that limits how many devices you can use the app on, which is pretty much against the part of the GPL that says you can't restrict the license further, or add any additional clauses. Further, Apple may be required to host the source themselves as intermediary distributors of GPL software (by which I mean make available to additional customers beyond the original authors' reach, not act as a shipping company -- i.e. they are resellers). I don't think the original author's actually violate the GPL, they provide the source to Apple... and they probably don't restrict the license at all.
- joe_the_user 16y agoI think "common carrier" is the term for ISP's and similar entities that are clearly not responsible for the content that passes through them. I believe this status is defined in the DMCA and other laws. IANAL but this is pretty basic stuff you can research.
- logic 16y agoIn this context, "common carrier" is a legal designation reserved for telecommunications carriers under the Communications Act of 1934. To date, ISPs are specifically not under that broad category, although I'd wager it's simply a question of when, rather than if. The DMCA relationship you're thinking of is the "safe harbor" provision for ISPs that respond in a proscribed manner to copyright infringement notifications. Wikipedia link (which is, sadly, very poorly edited right now): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunicatio...