5 ms·

Will someone please summarize? The link makes only a vague statement about incompatibility between GPL code and the App Store...

• sanxiyn 16y ago
  FSF said it best: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-...
  • ugh 16y ago
    A contentious view: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1853496 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1853496; http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1849687 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1849687
  • biot 16y ago
    So if someone wanted to be an asshole, they could send takedown notices for Pixie Scheme III (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2059242 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2059242) as well as all other apps that are under GPL and Apple would no doubt follow the same approach and take them away? Seems like a good way for closed source apps to remove their open source competition.
    • rimantas 16y ago
      Seems like a good way for closed source apps to remove their open source competition. Not all open source uses GPL, thankfully.
    • abrahamsen 16y ago
      "Someone" needs to be the legal owner of the GPL'ed code in question for the takedown notice to have any legal meaning.
      • jonhendry 16y ago
        But that could be a tiny portion of the code overall. One developer with a grudge can cause a problem, even if that developer has a tenuous connection to the project.
        • deleted 16y ago
          [deleted]
    • jbk 16y ago
      If it has some code there, yes.
  • jbk 16y ago
    FSF is wrong and totally biased. Not to mention outdated analysis... http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-December/078262.html http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Decembe...
• callahad 16y ago
  http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-October/077325.html http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-October...
• kurtsiegfried 16y ago
  http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-October/077325.html http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-October... This is the original post by Rémi Denis-Courmont, on the VLC developers mailing list pertaining to the takedown notice filed at the end of October. In it he links to another FSF post about incompatibilities between the App Store licensing terms, and the GPL, as well as his rational for filing the takedown notice EDIT: Sorry Callahad for the dupe, you typed faster than I did.
  • huhtenberg 16y ago
    So it was the FSF who pushed for the removal, and not Apple doing it on their own accord? Also reading that older HN discussion from two months ago it appears that Apple had addressed the compatibility of the AppStore T&C with the GPL (by adding an "unless" clause covering any prior licensing between the user and the software vendor) - has this changed since then? Can anyone care to comment without bashing either side? Thanks.
    • sanxiyn 16y ago
      Well, FSF and Remi notified Apple of the situation, and Apple removed them (GNU Go, Battle for Wesnoth, VLC). As I understand, FSF and Remi did not request Apple for removal, they requested either Apple modify their terms of use to be compatible with GPL, or failing that, remove the app. It was Apple's choice. EDIT: the parent added question about App Store terms change after I replied. I am working on that.
      • masklinn 16y ago
        > It was Apple's choice. Apple's only choice was to remove it, they were never going to create a special set of ToS just for these applications, and they were even less likely to alter their overall ToS to be compatible with the GPL.
        • Schmidt 16y ago
          Or they could use their approval process to figure out that the licence was incompatible with their ToS.
• tzs 16y ago
  People have posted links to the original thread and the FSF's long analysis, but a short summary might be possible. I shall attempt one. One of GPL's requirements is that when you distribute GPLed code, you can not impose any additional terms on the recipient. When a user obtains an app from the App Store, Apple makes a copy of the app and that is downloaded to the user. This means that Apple needs permission of the copyright owner to do this. For most apps, there is no problem, because the developer owns the copyright, and grants Apple permission to make and distribute copies. When the developer has included GPL code that he does not own, and whose owner has not granted an exception for Apple, Apple has to obey GPL. That means imposing no terms beyond GPL on the recipient. Unfortunately, Apple does impose terms on the user--you aren't allowed to use the App Store unless you agree to Apple's terms, which include limits on what you can do with the downloaded software.
  • rahoulb 16y ago
    So if the original authors of VLC (not the authors of the iOS app) granted that permission to Apple then this wouldn't be an issue?
    • abrahamsen 16y ago
      Yes. That might be quite a lot of people though.
    • tzs 16y ago
      It would take all people who own copyrights of code in VLC. That would include the VLC authors, but might also include authors of other GPL code that the VLC authors used. If a GPL project hasn't planned from the start to allow for the possibility of granting license exemptions, it is fairly easy to let outside GPL code get into the project without its authorship being carefully tracked and documented.