13 ms·

Apple does so many things well, actually. I would return to them for some things and even recommend them (versus exclusively GNU/Linux and LineageOS) if they'd

Apple does so many things well, actually. I would return to them for some things and even recommend them (versus exclusively GNU/Linux and LineageOS) if they'd only change the stupid iOS terms that prohibit GPL software.

X86BSD 9y ago
Funny, to me it's not Apple that is stupid, it's your license that is stupid. It's keeping your app out of the App Store, it's keeping ZFS and Dtrace from the Linux kernel, the amount of developer energy and time wasted on GPL enforcement and arguing about what it actually says and means is appalling. Why you would saddle yourself to a license with so much dead weight and so many problems I can't understand.
- AsyncAwait 9y ago
  And yet, the GPL has been absolutely critical in establishing free software as a credible player, so I'd disagree with you on the license being stupid.
  - X86BSD 9y ago
    No more so than the BSD/MIT/Apache licenses. The BSD license predates the GPL. And has none of the dead weight or baggage.
    - AsyncAwait 9y ago
      > The BSD license predates the GPL And the BSDs predate Linux. Yet Linux distros are the most popular free software OSes out there. I did not say the GPL invented open-source, but I don't think you can deny that it was the force to move it from obscurity, at least at the beginning.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  Do they just block the GPLs or any FLOSS license?
  - captn3m0 9y ago
    Just GPLv3
    - hedora 9y ago
      That's the one with the anti-tivo clause. Presumably, they'd have to support jail breaking, etc if they distributed gplv3 software. (They could get around this by supporting side loading, of course...)
    - quadrangle 9y ago
      I'm pretty sure all copyleft terms of any sort are prohibited, including GPLv2; Apple requires that all software fit their terms, so only sublicensable free-software licenses are compatible.
nnutter 9y ago
Isn't the issue that the App Store doesn't have a mechanism to redistribute the source in a way that is compliant with the GPL? Is it fair to say Apple prohibits the GPL? Anyway that tried to sell GPL licensed software on the App Store is "breaking the law" so Apple prohibits it? Or is there more to it?
- loumf 9y ago
  Specially the issue is that I cannot replace your binary with one I create myself from your source. 1. I can’t use your app ID 2. I can’t sign it with your cert 3. I can’t tie it to your website for deep links (because of #1) It used to be the case that I couldn’t even get the binary to the device without paying $99/year, but that’s not necessary any more. The dev program fee was definitely anti-GPL. I don’t know if the other things I mentioned are.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  > Isn't the issue that the App Store doesn't have a mechanism to redistribute the source in a way that is compliant with the GPL? Is it? I know nothing of this subject and am speaking out of my ass, but that seems.... trivial to do. I'm curious as to why that is hard for them to do?
- sheetjs 9y ago
  http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-... goes into more detail, but the summary is: > Apple's Terms of Service impose restrictive limits on use and distribution for any software distributed through the App Store, and the GPL doesn't allow that.
- quadrangle 9y ago
  As others clarified, this is not about source. I don't even care about that really, I mean I do in principle — but I just want to use and recommend to others and have GPL software within the iOS ecosystem, on these devices. I'm fine if the source were available through just a link in the software to a website where you separately download it. No, here's the deal: GPL: You CAN modify and share this software, and if you share, you have to keep these terms for others so they have freedoms too. iOS terms: You MAY NOT modify or share ANY software you get as a normal consumer through the app store OR install any software from outside the app store. The problem is that Apple's unwillingness to ALLOW a user to exercise these basic freedoms means that there's no way to distribute in the App Store any software that requires these freedoms be maintained. It's incompatible terms. And the fault for the incompatibility lies 100% on Apple for their terms that are the ones that demand that freedoms not be allowed.

X86BSD 9y ago

Funny, to me it's not Apple that is stupid, it's your license that is stupid. It's keeping your app out of the App Store, it's keeping ZFS and Dtrace from the Linux kernel, the amount of developer energy and time wasted on GPL enforcement and arguing about what it actually says and means is appalling. Why you would saddle yourself to a license with so much dead weight and so many problems I can't understand.

AsyncAwait 9y ago
And yet, the GPL has been absolutely critical in establishing free software as a credible player, so I'd disagree with you on the license being stupid.
- X86BSD 9y ago
  No more so than the BSD/MIT/Apache licenses. The BSD license predates the GPL. And has none of the dead weight or baggage.
  - AsyncAwait 9y ago
    > The BSD license predates the GPL And the BSDs predate Linux. Yet Linux distros are the most popular free software OSes out there. I did not say the GPL invented open-source, but I don't think you can deny that it was the force to move it from obscurity, at least at the beginning.
craftyguy 9y ago
Do they just block the GPLs or any FLOSS license?
- captn3m0 9y ago
  Just GPLv3
  - hedora 9y ago
    That's the one with the anti-tivo clause. Presumably, they'd have to support jail breaking, etc if they distributed gplv3 software. (They could get around this by supporting side loading, of course...)
  - quadrangle 9y ago
    I'm pretty sure all copyleft terms of any sort are prohibited, including GPLv2; Apple requires that all software fit their terms, so only sublicensable free-software licenses are compatible.

nnutter 9y ago

Isn't the issue that the App Store doesn't have a mechanism to redistribute the source in a way that is compliant with the GPL? Is it fair to say Apple prohibits the GPL? Anyway that tried to sell GPL licensed software on the App Store is "breaking the law" so Apple prohibits it? Or is there more to it?

loumf 9y ago
Specially the issue is that I cannot replace your binary with one I create myself from your source. 1. I can’t use your app ID 2. I can’t sign it with your cert 3. I can’t tie it to your website for deep links (because of #1) It used to be the case that I couldn’t even get the binary to the device without paying $99/year, but that’s not necessary any more. The dev program fee was definitely anti-GPL. I don’t know if the other things I mentioned are.
CaptSpify 9y ago
> Isn't the issue that the App Store doesn't have a mechanism to redistribute the source in a way that is compliant with the GPL? Is it? I know nothing of this subject and am speaking out of my ass, but that seems.... trivial to do. I'm curious as to why that is hard for them to do?
sheetjs 9y ago
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-... goes into more detail, but the summary is: > Apple's Terms of Service impose restrictive limits on use and distribution for any software distributed through the App Store, and the GPL doesn't allow that.
quadrangle 9y ago
As others clarified, this is not about source. I don't even care about that really, I mean I do in principle — but I just want to use and recommend to others and have GPL software within the iOS ecosystem, on these devices. I'm fine if the source were available through just a link in the software to a website where you separately download it. No, here's the deal: GPL: You CAN modify and share this software, and if you share, you have to keep these terms for others so they have freedoms too. iOS terms: You MAY NOT modify or share ANY software you get as a normal consumer through the app store OR install any software from outside the app store. The problem is that Apple's unwillingness to ALLOW a user to exercise these basic freedoms means that there's no way to distribute in the App Store any software that requires these freedoms be maintained. It's incompatible terms. And the fault for the incompatibility lies 100% on Apple for their terms that are the ones that demand that freedoms not be allowed.