7 ms·

This is awesome but man the licensing sucks.. Sounds like to release on the App Store you have to pay for a commercial license? Even a free app?

cheez 7y ago
The licensing is likely intended to ensure sustainability
- mwcampbell 7y ago
  Or even, gasp, profitability for the developers. That's a perfectly reasonable thing for a developer or company to expect. It would be better, though, if they published pricing and had a self-service purchase process, rather than requiring users to contact them.
  - detaro 7y ago
    It's a really new project, so they're probably still figuring out what model works best and might want to limit the kind of deal they do - e.g. make sure it fits the client and they can support them with development where necessary. Freely selling licenses and then have unhappy customers that didn't evaluate the current state properly would be problematic.
- GordonS 7y ago
  Perhaps, but it's a bit of a dilemma - a GPL license likely won't allow this to gain enough traction to become sustainable in the first place.
detaro 7y ago
Yes. GPL apps can't go into the app store, because it's terms of use forbid activities that can't be forbidden according to GPL.
- dkersten 7y ago
  I don't quite understand this. The GPL gives the end user the rights to the source, to modify the source and to redistribute the software (modified or otherwise), as long as they make the source available. It doesn't say it has to be available through the exact same mechanism that you received the software in the first place, nor does it say that you have to release your changed software through the same mechanism. IANAL, so I definitely could be wrong, but as long as your GPL software links to the code, eg on Github or somewhere, and provides all of the source including your modifications there, any other restrictions the App Store enforces should be irrelevant to the GPL, right? (Unless the app store says you can't link to external source code, or something, of course) What am I missing?
  - invokestatic 7y ago
    The main difference between GPLv2 and v3 is the prevention of “TiVoization”. The background is that TiVo I believe was using the Linux kernel in their devices, and despite the fact that they were contributing their changes back to the community, they used code signing, or some other technical measure, to prevent end-users from running a custom version of the Linux kernel. So in reaction to this, GPLv3 was released that explicitly prohibits this behavior — that is, there must not be any technical measure preventing the user from using a modified version of the GPL’d software. On iOS, Apple enforced code signing on all apps, so a user cannot download an app’s source, modify it, and use it on their device. Code signing prevents that, therefore would be a violation of GPL.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      > a user cannot download an app’s source, modify it, and use it on their device But I can do this for open source apps? More specifically (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and I don't know if this has been tested in court), I personally don't see the GPL requiring that I be able to modify the exact, signed binary that I was shipped if I can create an equivalent one myself.
      - 7y ago
gitoby 7y ago
Author here. We are aware of the issues with the GPL. We are in the process of adding an LGPL licensing option.

cheez 7y ago

The licensing is likely intended to ensure sustainability

mwcampbell 7y ago
Or even, gasp, profitability for the developers. That's a perfectly reasonable thing for a developer or company to expect. It would be better, though, if they published pricing and had a self-service purchase process, rather than requiring users to contact them.
- detaro 7y ago
  It's a really new project, so they're probably still figuring out what model works best and might want to limit the kind of deal they do - e.g. make sure it fits the client and they can support them with development where necessary. Freely selling licenses and then have unhappy customers that didn't evaluate the current state properly would be problematic.
GordonS 7y ago
Perhaps, but it's a bit of a dilemma - a GPL license likely won't allow this to gain enough traction to become sustainable in the first place.

detaro 7y ago

Yes. GPL apps can't go into the app store, because it's terms of use forbid activities that can't be forbidden according to GPL.

dkersten 7y ago
I don't quite understand this. The GPL gives the end user the rights to the source, to modify the source and to redistribute the software (modified or otherwise), as long as they make the source available. It doesn't say it has to be available through the exact same mechanism that you received the software in the first place, nor does it say that you have to release your changed software through the same mechanism. IANAL, so I definitely could be wrong, but as long as your GPL software links to the code, eg on Github or somewhere, and provides all of the source including your modifications there, any other restrictions the App Store enforces should be irrelevant to the GPL, right? (Unless the app store says you can't link to external source code, or something, of course) What am I missing?
- invokestatic 7y ago
  The main difference between GPLv2 and v3 is the prevention of “TiVoization”. The background is that TiVo I believe was using the Linux kernel in their devices, and despite the fact that they were contributing their changes back to the community, they used code signing, or some other technical measure, to prevent end-users from running a custom version of the Linux kernel. So in reaction to this, GPLv3 was released that explicitly prohibits this behavior — that is, there must not be any technical measure preventing the user from using a modified version of the GPL’d software. On iOS, Apple enforced code signing on all apps, so a user cannot download an app’s source, modify it, and use it on their device. Code signing prevents that, therefore would be a violation of GPL.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    > a user cannot download an app’s source, modify it, and use it on their device But I can do this for open source apps? More specifically (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and I don't know if this has been tested in court), I personally don't see the GPL requiring that I be able to modify the exact, signed binary that I was shipped if I can create an equivalent one myself.
    - 7y ago

gitoby 7y ago

Author here. We are aware of the issues with the GPL. We are in the process of adding an LGPL licensing option.