7 ms·
What's so funny about all this is that the distribution constraints of the App Store do not make it incompatible with the GPLv2. Having to pay Apple $99/year fo
by blasdel 16y ago
What's so funny about all this is that the distribution constraints of the App Store do not make it incompatible with the GPLv2. Having to pay Apple $99/year for keys is irrelevant, as is the signing of binaries that prevents redistribution between devices (and even if those were problems, there's jailbreaking). Hell, it wouldn't violate the GPLv2 even if there was no way for users to get their code on the device at all (see TiVo, et. al.). It's unfortunate that all the early discussion of this was laser-focused on the irrelevant DRM.
Rémi's argument is that the Apple Store Terms & Conditions constrain your usage rights — "YOU SHALL BE AUTHORIZED TO USE THE PRODUCTS ONLY FOR PERSONAL, NONCOMMERCIAL USE." — and downstream authors/distributors are not allowed to "impose any further restrictions" beyond the GPL.
Rémi is technically correct (the best kind of correct!) that the App Store terms are in conflict with the GPL. The clause in question isn't just for apps, its basic purpose is that purchasing a song or movie from Apple doesn't give you public performance rights to it. Apple could pay their lawyers to bloat out the whole usage section so that it'd be difficult for Rémi to pick a fight over it, but they probably won't.
But if people are going to pick fights over minor unenforceable EULA terms, they're going to find them everywhere they look. I mean for fuck's sake you also agree that you will not use iPhone software in the operation of nuclear facilities or for aircraft navigation, like in a great many EULAs. If some ideologue really wants to burn it all down they could probably find a ton of high-profile but ultimately pointless technical GPL violations in this vein.
Wherever a fight is sought it will be found. No copyright license will ever prevent either upstream or downstream from being huge asshats if that's what they want to be.
- ijuhygtfhyuj 16y agoRemi's arguements were an attempt to get Apple to change the 'personal non-commercial part' of it's licence to something more open. But I suspect that Apple removing VLC has more to do with controlling what formats you can play, and so where you can buy content, rather than a desire to protect VLC's GPL contributions. Interesting that the super hacker cool Apple have effectively banned GPL from their popular platform and with the Mac iStore may soon be banning it from all their machines. While MSFT is announcing more open source support. Looks like the lightsaber of the dark side has been passed on.
- rbanffy 16y ago> While MSFT is announcing more open source support. Erm... They may support it in some instances.
- oiuyuikuhygt 16y agoOK you aren't about to see Balmer and Stallman together in a hot tub. But MSFT haven't banned GPLed software from their platform
- statictype 16y agoI'm guessing these terms are to protect against piracy. I don't think distributing apps via ad-hoc distribution (with the developer license) or through their enterprise program would have these restrictions.
- rbanffy 16y ago> MSFT haven't banned GPLed software from their platform Apple didn't ban GPLed software from their platforms. Apple has terms of service for their software distribution mechanism that conflicts with GPL'ed software. I agree the terms are restrictive and disrespectful towards the users, but I am not sure why are you implying that Microsoft is doing much better. Have you read any recent EUAL from them?
- blasdel 16y agoIf format control was what Apple cared about, they wouldn't have approved the app in the first place. Really, they would have left it at that.
- CrazedGeek 16y agoI doubt it had anything to do with format control, seeing as CineXPlayer was on the App Store well before VLC was and is still available: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id384098375?mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id384098375?mt=8
- jedsmith 16y ago