5 ms·

I like this part on the end > App Store terms and conditions forbid distribution of Free Software that grants users freedom to use the program any way they wan

I like this part on the end > App Store terms and conditions forbid distribution of Free Software that grants users freedom to use the program any way they want. You're not allowed to distribute this software with DRM applied to it. Basically the essence of the GPL in one short paragraph.

nemothekid 9y ago
Is this actually correct? If I distribute my app on the App Store, and provide a GitHub link in the description of the the full source code of the app, then it should comply with the GPL.
- drew-y 9y ago
  That's what I was thinking. Some home routers have source links for the free software they use.
  - jacobush 9y ago
    But I'd venture a guess that this source code is GPLv2 licensed, not GPLv3 licensed. They could make their firmware GPLv3 compliant, but it would be quite a bit of extra work.
- kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
  GPL compliance requires that you can reproduce a binary from the source with no additional encumbrances. That's not possible on Apple platforms. It's not enough to just provide the source.
  - tomc1985 9y ago
    Are you referring to additional meta that Apple applies to apps in the app store or something else?
  - inyorgroove 9y ago
    So no signed binaries? The signature portion will obviously not be reproducible by anyone but the original signer. I believe that is all the App Store process does, sign with a key issued by Apple, but it might be more complex.
    - slavik81 9y ago
      > I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys?I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys? > No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would function. In that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign and install modified software on the device so that it will run. If each instance of the device uses a different key, then you need only give each purchaser a key for that instance. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GiveUpKeys https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GiveUpKeys
      - jacobush 9y ago
        And in the case of a Mac, so far you don't need keys to install software you compiled yourself. On iOS there are additional encumbrances, like the need for a dev account, a separate computing device (a Mac) to compile for the iOS device, and so on.
        nothrabannosir 9y ago
        It’s getting harder and harder for kexts. You can’t readily compile those from source and install them yourself without a developer license , anymore. You currently technically still can, I believe (restart in some safe mode and disable a protection mechanism of sorts, iirc), but the trend is not towards openness. Honestly I don’t doubt for a second they’re doing it purely for the sake of security, but that doesn’t really matter for the GPL as far as I’m aware ?
  - jacobush 9y ago
    I'd say that it's possible on a Mac, but not on an iOS device. You can't develop iOS apps on an iOS device, for starters. Just that is an additional encumbrance. Last time I checked, you also need some dev account with Apple to upload apps to your iOS device. (Remember, these rules are subject to interpretation, in court in the extreme case.)
- zbowling 9y ago
  If you own all the copyrights to the source of the app you are linking on Github, then you can release it on the Appstore effectively under a different license for that version. If you don't own all the code, then are possibly violating someone else's license.
- chungy 9y ago
  Short answers: GPLv2, no; GPLv3, yes. Apple's App Store is identical to the TiVoization problem that GPLv3 was written to combat: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Tivoization provision of GPLv3 only applies to software distributed as with a hardware “ussr product” (in the same transaction in which possessory interest in the hardware is transferred), so while it would apply to core components of iOS (of they used GPLv3 upstream, which they won't), it wouldn't seem to apply to any third party software distributed through the App Store. (The same concerns that motivated anti-tivoization may apply, but the actual license terms don't appear to.) This is not to say that there aren't other incompatibilities, but anti-tivoization doesn't seem to be a problem.
    - chungy 9y ago
      There is no difference. Apple provides binaries (via the App Store), and the user is not allowed to install/run their own binaries, which is a requirement the GPLv3 added to prevent TiVoization. It matters not whether the software is preinstalled or offered on the side, the effect is the same. If the user can't install their own versions of software, the environment is incompatible with the GPLv3. Now, running GPLv3 software via Cydia/jailbroken-iPhones is probably OK, since the user has gone through the effort in order to run their own versions of software. I'm pretty sure the FSF would prefer running a free software version of Android instead, however. :-)
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - jcelerier 9y ago
        > There is no difference. Apple provides binaries (via the App Store), and the user is not allowed to install/run their own binaries, which is a requirement the GPLv3 added to prevent TiVoization. This has not been true for a few years. Nowadays anyone can freely upload apps from Xcode to iDevices (before it used to cost 99$)
- rmc 9y ago
  The Free Software Foundation has some details on this[1]. This used to come up with the video player VLC, but they seem to have relicenced it, and it's now possible.[2] I've heard one reason is that the App Store requires users to agree to additional usage restrictions, which the GPL forbids distributors (in this case Apple) from applying. [1] https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store... [2] https://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-ios.html https://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-ios.html
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  It's correct that GPLv3 forbids it (I think v2 doesn't) which isn't a problem with the App Store - it's a problem with the (opinionated) GPLv3. Plenty of other OSS licenses work fine on the app store.
- pornel 9y ago
  It's irrelevant what you do to comply. To distribute in the App Store, Apple requires you to sign an agreement in which you license the code to Apple under Apple's non-FOSS terms. If you don't have the right to license the code under Apple's terms, Apple won't take it. Apple doesn't comply with GPL and they don't want to. On a few occasions I have formally asked them to comply with GPL terms and they took GPLed apps down instead.
mythz 9y ago
It sounds like he wants to make it illegal on the AppStore: > Permission is granted to copy, distribute, or alter Gifsicle, whole or in part, as long as source code copyright notices are kept intact, with the following restriction: Developers or distributors who plan to use Gifsicle code, whole or in part, in a product whose source code will not be made available to the end user -- more precisely, in a context which would violate the GPL -- MUST contact the author and obtain permission before doing so. - https://github.com/kornelski/giflossy#copyrightlicense https://github.com/kornelski/giflossy#copyrightlicense
- jacobush 9y ago
  He made it illegal when he chose GPL(v3). The text above just points it out. That it's inconvenient for app store users has no bearing on legality. Of course, as the author, he could with a stroke of the hand give an app store excemption or change/add a license, but clearly, he doesn't want to.
- boomlinde 9y ago
  The software is based on Gifsicle, itself a GPLv2 licensed piece of software, so there isn't much the author could legally do about it. This comment section is filled with weird misconceptions about the software and about the compatibility between GPL and the Apple store terms of service. Somehow people think the software is GPLv3 even though a cursory glance will reveal that it isn't. People think that the author of the modification has a say in how it's licensed. It's based on GPLv2 software, he doesn't. Others are saying that while distributing GPLv2 licensed software on the Apple store is fine, GPLv3 isn't, when neither is OK. Sorry for soapboxing here, but it seems appropriate to address all these misconceptions in one place.
aw3c2 9y ago
And that's awesome and a boon to society!
yoz-y 9y ago
Why not use the AGPL in this case though? GPLv3 still does not prevent you from putting it on a server and exposing it as a SAAS.
- boomlinde 9y ago
  What makes you assume that's something he wants to prevent?
  - yoz-y 9y ago
    The tone. I assume that if the author does not want people to distribute the library in an application with DRM, regardless of the fact whether they publish the source code or not they would also not be happy if somebody just took it, modified it and sold it as service without publishing their code.
    - boomlinde 9y ago
      Let's maybe generously assume that the author is not dumb and would carefully choose a license based on his needs and preferences. Then consider the facts: The work is based on GPLv2 licensed tool (gifsicle), thus subject to the same terms and conditions. Knowing that, one can read the note as a friendly reminder of how the ToS of the Apple store is incompatible with GPLv2. You may have read it as snark, but it's literally just stating a matter of fact regarding a matter the author of the fork can't legally do anything about.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

nemothekid 9y ago

Is this actually correct? If I distribute my app on the App Store, and provide a GitHub link in the description of the the full source code of the app, then it should comply with the GPL.

drew-y 9y ago
That's what I was thinking. Some home routers have source links for the free software they use.
- jacobush 9y ago
  But I'd venture a guess that this source code is GPLv2 licensed, not GPLv3 licensed. They could make their firmware GPLv3 compliant, but it would be quite a bit of extra work.
kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
GPL compliance requires that you can reproduce a binary from the source with no additional encumbrances. That's not possible on Apple platforms. It's not enough to just provide the source.
- tomc1985 9y ago
  Are you referring to additional meta that Apple applies to apps in the app store or something else?
- inyorgroove 9y ago
  So no signed binaries? The signature portion will obviously not be reproducible by anyone but the original signer. I believe that is all the App Store process does, sign with a key issued by Apple, but it might be more complex.
  - slavik81 9y ago
    > I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys?I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys? > No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would function. In that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign and install modified software on the device so that it will run. If each instance of the device uses a different key, then you need only give each purchaser a key for that instance. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GiveUpKeys https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GiveUpKeys
    - jacobush 9y ago
      And in the case of a Mac, so far you don't need keys to install software you compiled yourself. On iOS there are additional encumbrances, like the need for a dev account, a separate computing device (a Mac) to compile for the iOS device, and so on.
      - nothrabannosir 9y ago
        It’s getting harder and harder for kexts. You can’t readily compile those from source and install them yourself without a developer license , anymore. You currently technically still can, I believe (restart in some safe mode and disable a protection mechanism of sorts, iirc), but the trend is not towards openness. Honestly I don’t doubt for a second they’re doing it purely for the sake of security, but that doesn’t really matter for the GPL as far as I’m aware ?
- jacobush 9y ago
  I'd say that it's possible on a Mac, but not on an iOS device. You can't develop iOS apps on an iOS device, for starters. Just that is an additional encumbrance. Last time I checked, you also need some dev account with Apple to upload apps to your iOS device. (Remember, these rules are subject to interpretation, in court in the extreme case.)
zbowling 9y ago
If you own all the copyrights to the source of the app you are linking on Github, then you can release it on the Appstore effectively under a different license for that version. If you don't own all the code, then are possibly violating someone else's license.
chungy 9y ago
Short answers: GPLv2, no; GPLv3, yes. Apple's App Store is identical to the TiVoization problem that GPLv3 was written to combat: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Tivoization provision of GPLv3 only applies to software distributed as with a hardware “ussr product” (in the same transaction in which possessory interest in the hardware is transferred), so while it would apply to core components of iOS (of they used GPLv3 upstream, which they won't), it wouldn't seem to apply to any third party software distributed through the App Store. (The same concerns that motivated anti-tivoization may apply, but the actual license terms don't appear to.) This is not to say that there aren't other incompatibilities, but anti-tivoization doesn't seem to be a problem.
  - chungy 9y ago
    There is no difference. Apple provides binaries (via the App Store), and the user is not allowed to install/run their own binaries, which is a requirement the GPLv3 added to prevent TiVoization. It matters not whether the software is preinstalled or offered on the side, the effect is the same. If the user can't install their own versions of software, the environment is incompatible with the GPLv3. Now, running GPLv3 software via Cydia/jailbroken-iPhones is probably OK, since the user has gone through the effort in order to run their own versions of software. I'm pretty sure the FSF would prefer running a free software version of Android instead, however. :-)
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - jcelerier 9y ago
      > There is no difference. Apple provides binaries (via the App Store), and the user is not allowed to install/run their own binaries, which is a requirement the GPLv3 added to prevent TiVoization. This has not been true for a few years. Nowadays anyone can freely upload apps from Xcode to iDevices (before it used to cost 99$)
rmc 9y ago
The Free Software Foundation has some details on this[1]. This used to come up with the video player VLC, but they seem to have relicenced it, and it's now possible.[2] I've heard one reason is that the App Store requires users to agree to additional usage restrictions, which the GPL forbids distributors (in this case Apple) from applying. [1] https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store... [2] https://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-ios.html https://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-ios.html
abritinthebay 9y ago
It's correct that GPLv3 forbids it (I think v2 doesn't) which isn't a problem with the App Store - it's a problem with the (opinionated) GPLv3. Plenty of other OSS licenses work fine on the app store.
pornel 9y ago
It's irrelevant what you do to comply. To distribute in the App Store, Apple requires you to sign an agreement in which you license the code to Apple under Apple's non-FOSS terms. If you don't have the right to license the code under Apple's terms, Apple won't take it. Apple doesn't comply with GPL and they don't want to. On a few occasions I have formally asked them to comply with GPL terms and they took GPLed apps down instead.

mythz 9y ago

It sounds like he wants to make it illegal on the AppStore: > Permission is granted to copy, distribute, or alter Gifsicle, whole or in part, as long as source code copyright notices are kept intact, with the following restriction: Developers or distributors who plan to use Gifsicle code, whole or in part, in a product whose source code will not be made available to the end user -- more precisely, in a context which would violate the GPL -- MUST contact the author and obtain permission before doing so. - https://github.com/kornelski/giflossy#copyrightlicense https://github.com/kornelski/giflossy#copyrightlicense

jacobush 9y ago
He made it illegal when he chose GPL(v3). The text above just points it out. That it's inconvenient for app store users has no bearing on legality. Of course, as the author, he could with a stroke of the hand give an app store excemption or change/add a license, but clearly, he doesn't want to.
boomlinde 9y ago
The software is based on Gifsicle, itself a GPLv2 licensed piece of software, so there isn't much the author could legally do about it. This comment section is filled with weird misconceptions about the software and about the compatibility between GPL and the Apple store terms of service. Somehow people think the software is GPLv3 even though a cursory glance will reveal that it isn't. People think that the author of the modification has a say in how it's licensed. It's based on GPLv2 software, he doesn't. Others are saying that while distributing GPLv2 licensed software on the Apple store is fine, GPLv3 isn't, when neither is OK. Sorry for soapboxing here, but it seems appropriate to address all these misconceptions in one place.

aw3c2 9y ago

And that's awesome and a boon to society!

yoz-y 9y ago

Why not use the AGPL in this case though? GPLv3 still does not prevent you from putting it on a server and exposing it as a SAAS.

boomlinde 9y ago
What makes you assume that's something he wants to prevent?
- yoz-y 9y ago
  The tone. I assume that if the author does not want people to distribute the library in an application with DRM, regardless of the fact whether they publish the source code or not they would also not be happy if somebody just took it, modified it and sold it as service without publishing their code.
  - boomlinde 9y ago
    Let's maybe generously assume that the author is not dumb and would carefully choose a license based on his needs and preferences. Then consider the facts: The work is based on GPLv2 licensed tool (gifsicle), thus subject to the same terms and conditions. Knowing that, one can read the note as a friendly reminder of how the ToS of the Apple store is incompatible with GPLv2. You may have read it as snark, but it's literally just stating a matter of fact regarding a matter the author of the fork can't legally do anything about.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]