14 ms·

This is a good (but painful) thing. The GPL is designed to counteract the sort distribution lockdown that the App Store represents, and it's doing its job here.

by cheald 16y ago

This is a good (but painful) thing. The GPL is designed to counteract the sort distribution lockdown that the App Store represents, and it's doing its job here. The GPL is diametrically opposed to the App Store ecosystem (buy once, reuse/modify never), and it's a good thing that it's being enforced, even if it does mean the loss of quality software on the iOS platform. This really does underscore, however, how important it is to license your code carefully. If you want to make it completely free (as in, "I don't care what you do with it" free), use BSD. If you want to make sure that your software is never used restrictively and that it continually promotes the free software ethos, then GPL is a great tool.

wzdd 16y ago
I'm not entirely convinced about this, so perhaps someone can help me out. If I contribute to a BSD-licensed project but don't assign copyright, wouldn't that give me the right to ask Apple to remove the project from their store on copyright grounds, assuming somebody submitted it there? What does the GPL have to do with it, in general? (I realise the specifics of this case are slightly different.)
- protomyth 16y ago
  If a project is under the BSD and you contribute code under the BSD, you gave rights via the license. If you change your mind the you poison the BSD licensed project. Why contribute?
  - wzdd 16y ago
    This is a good question to ask of a rational, logical person. However, people change their minds all the time, so I'm interested in the legalities: could a contributor to a BSD project get applications taken down? Assume the contributor is malicious, insane, or just mercurial.
    - X-Istence 16y ago
      Nope. You have given away the right to make decisions on who can use the code when you assigned that license to it. Could you take said code, remove the license and make it available commercially? Sure, it is your code, but any older or previous copies are still available under the BSD license.
rbanffy 16y ago
> If you want to make it completely free (as in, "I don't care what you do with it" free), use BSD Sadly, it's also free as "please, BigNastyCorp, feel free to take away any freedoms from your users who depend on my work". While BSD may be "more free" according to some, it's the freedoms of the users we are (or should be) protecting. For those, *GPL is the license of choice.
- Stormbringer 16y ago
  The GPL does not give a rat's patootie about users. The GPL is designed to ensure the maximum freedoms of developers. That it simultaneously destroys any hope that those same developers can enrich themselves by selling the software is supremely ironic, as it forces them to live as wage slaves under the whims of their corporate overlords. Thus they gain one sort of liberty but at the expense of giving up other economic freedoms. Frankly if someone came up to me and said that in their ideal world I wouldn't be able to sell software or build my own software company, I'd want to burn them at the stake for heresy. Fortunately the world is big enough for everyone. :D
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    > The GPL does not give a rat's patootie about users. Care to explain your reasoning? > The GPL is designed to ensure the maximum freedoms of developers. That's why it explicitly prohibits you from using GPL'ed code under proprietary licenses. No. If you intend to engage in an intelligent debate, you should, at least, educate yourself to a point you actually can. > That it simultaneously destroys any hope that those same developers can enrich themselves by selling the software You can always double-license it, MySQL-style. Again, GPL is not for the developers, but for the users. In your case, it's likely you use more software than you create, so, in the end, the GPL actually benefits you despite your own misgivings and misconceptions. > I wouldn't be able to sell software Why? What I can't have is a monopoly on the GPL'ed software I sell. OTOH, nobody can have a monopoly on GPL'ed software. And that's a very good thing for the users, who are sure they will have both the software and the technical means to maintain it on the unlikely event I am hit by a bus.

by cheald 16y ago

wzdd 16y ago

I'm not entirely convinced about this, so perhaps someone can help me out. If I contribute to a BSD-licensed project but don't assign copyright, wouldn't that give me the right to ask Apple to remove the project from their store on copyright grounds, assuming somebody submitted it there? What does the GPL have to do with it, in general? (I realise the specifics of this case are slightly different.)

protomyth 16y ago
If a project is under the BSD and you contribute code under the BSD, you gave rights via the license. If you change your mind the you poison the BSD licensed project. Why contribute?
- wzdd 16y ago
  This is a good question to ask of a rational, logical person. However, people change their minds all the time, so I'm interested in the legalities: could a contributor to a BSD project get applications taken down? Assume the contributor is malicious, insane, or just mercurial.
  - X-Istence 16y ago
    Nope. You have given away the right to make decisions on who can use the code when you assigned that license to it. Could you take said code, remove the license and make it available commercially? Sure, it is your code, but any older or previous copies are still available under the BSD license.

rbanffy 16y ago

> If you want to make it completely free (as in, "I don't care what you do with it" free), use BSD Sadly, it's also free as "please, BigNastyCorp, feel free to take away any freedoms from your users who depend on my work". While BSD may be "more free" according to some, it's the freedoms of the users we are (or should be) protecting. For those, *GPL is the license of choice.

Stormbringer 16y ago
The GPL does not give a rat's patootie about users. The GPL is designed to ensure the maximum freedoms of developers. That it simultaneously destroys any hope that those same developers can enrich themselves by selling the software is supremely ironic, as it forces them to live as wage slaves under the whims of their corporate overlords. Thus they gain one sort of liberty but at the expense of giving up other economic freedoms. Frankly if someone came up to me and said that in their ideal world I wouldn't be able to sell software or build my own software company, I'd want to burn them at the stake for heresy. Fortunately the world is big enough for everyone. :D
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > The GPL does not give a rat's patootie about users. Care to explain your reasoning? > The GPL is designed to ensure the maximum freedoms of developers. That's why it explicitly prohibits you from using GPL'ed code under proprietary licenses. No. If you intend to engage in an intelligent debate, you should, at least, educate yourself to a point you actually can. > That it simultaneously destroys any hope that those same developers can enrich themselves by selling the software You can always double-license it, MySQL-style. Again, GPL is not for the developers, but for the users. In your case, it's likely you use more software than you create, so, in the end, the GPL actually benefits you despite your own misgivings and misconceptions. > I wouldn't be able to sell software Why? What I can't have is a monopoly on the GPL'ed software I sell. OTOH, nobody can have a monopoly on GPL'ed software. And that's a very good thing for the users, who are sure they will have both the software and the technical means to maintain it on the unlikely event I am hit by a bus.