5 ms·

Miro Video Converter (GPL license) now in the App Store

17 points by gglanzani 16y ago

drivebyacct2 16y ago
I thought the terms of the App Store and the GPL were incompatible...
- gglanzani 16y ago
  I know that the terms of the iTunes App Store are incompatible with the GPL. Not sure about the Mac App store though.
- zppx 16y ago
  BeTrains is a GPL software, and the iOS version is in the App Store. In my opinion GPL software is incompatible with the App Store in general, for paid applications it's even more explicit, the GPL gives you the right to distribute the compiled software as you wish, a paid app cannot be distributed for more than 5 devices as far as I understand. Of course there's exceptions, if every copyright holders do agree, they can give GPL exceptions for distributors, such as Apple, another situation like that exists if the software contain copyrighted artwork that's not under the GPL, then you can distribute the code freely but not the artwork (and as such any binary that contains this artwork), there's various complications, I think a lawyer can give more explanation about this situation. EDIT: I'm not sure but I think the GPL contain terms that regulates non-source forms, there are also terms that complicates distributors from limiting user's freedoms, as the GPL define freedoms, although I believe the last case is void if the copyright holders give exceptions to the distributor. EDIT2: Correction for BeTrains.
  - fluidcruft 16y ago
    You're correct. GPL regulates non-source forms (section 6--Conveying Non-Source Forms). However, I think in this case it's the anti-TiVoization clauses that interfere with the App Store DRM.
    - wmf 16y ago
      Anti-Tivoization is only in GPLv3 but most people are still using GPLv2. The problem with the App Store and GPLv2 is its ban on additional restrictions.
      - fluidcruft 16y ago
        Most of GNU is now GPLv3+. BeTrains is GPLv3
    - tzs 16y ago
      I don't see how the anti-Tivoication clause is incompatible with DRM in general. It only seems to be incompatible with DRM on bundled software: If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM). Optional add-ons for a device sold in separate transactions after the sale of the device on which they run would not be transactions "in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred".
      - fluidcruft 16y ago
        An iOS device running a third-party download does not constitute a User Product. Otherwise, I don't understand what you're getting at. Yes, there are DRM exceptions in the GPL (mostly to allow use in things like medical devices). Even if we assume an App by itself constitutes a User Product, then when you purchase an App Store app, you're allowed to install it on your phone (possession) and run it (use)? But that's a big stretch. I'm just trying to understand your point.
        tzs 16y ago

17 points by gglanzani 16y ago

drivebyacct2 16y ago

I thought the terms of the App Store and the GPL were incompatible...

gglanzani 16y ago
I know that the terms of the iTunes App Store are incompatible with the GPL. Not sure about the Mac App store though.
zppx 16y ago
BeTrains is a GPL software, and the iOS version is in the App Store. In my opinion GPL software is incompatible with the App Store in general, for paid applications it's even more explicit, the GPL gives you the right to distribute the compiled software as you wish, a paid app cannot be distributed for more than 5 devices as far as I understand. Of course there's exceptions, if every copyright holders do agree, they can give GPL exceptions for distributors, such as Apple, another situation like that exists if the software contain copyrighted artwork that's not under the GPL, then you can distribute the code freely but not the artwork (and as such any binary that contains this artwork), there's various complications, I think a lawyer can give more explanation about this situation. EDIT: I'm not sure but I think the GPL contain terms that regulates non-source forms, there are also terms that complicates distributors from limiting user's freedoms, as the GPL define freedoms, although I believe the last case is void if the copyright holders give exceptions to the distributor. EDIT2: Correction for BeTrains.
- fluidcruft 16y ago
  You're correct. GPL regulates non-source forms (section 6--Conveying Non-Source Forms). However, I think in this case it's the anti-TiVoization clauses that interfere with the App Store DRM.
  - wmf 16y ago
    Anti-Tivoization is only in GPLv3 but most people are still using GPLv2. The problem with the App Store and GPLv2 is its ban on additional restrictions.
    - fluidcruft 16y ago
      Most of GNU is now GPLv3+. BeTrains is GPLv3
  - tzs 16y ago
    I don't see how the anti-Tivoication clause is incompatible with DRM in general. It only seems to be incompatible with DRM on bundled software: If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM). Optional add-ons for a device sold in separate transactions after the sale of the device on which they run would not be transactions "in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred".
    - fluidcruft 16y ago
      An iOS device running a third-party download does not constitute a User Product. Otherwise, I don't understand what you're getting at. Yes, there are DRM exceptions in the GPL (mostly to allow use in things like medical devices). Even if we assume an App by itself constitutes a User Product, then when you purchase an App Store app, you're allowed to install it on your phone (possession) and run it (use)? But that's a big stretch. I'm just trying to understand your point.
      - tzs 16y ago