5 ms·

When i asked if i could use his libraries in ios/android apps Moxie refused. He licensed them under GPL that prohibits distributing of software via app stores.

by ex3ndr 7y ago

When i asked if i could use his libraries in ios/android apps Moxie refused. He licensed them under GPL that prohibits distributing of software via app stores. Quite a strange for a guy who claim that he wants to spread encryption. Sure, but only on your own platform. Fastforward he sold such rights for a whatsapp. Just simple business, nothing about privacy itself.

jlund 7y ago
https://signal.org/blog/license-update/ https://signal.org/blog/license-update/
- ex3ndr 7y ago
  Aha, yeah: https://github.com/signalapp/curve25519-java/issues/5 https://github.com/signalapp/curve25519-java/issues/5
  - slipheen 7y ago
    It sounds like he addressed the point you raised (App Stores) even though he'd prefer to keep it GPL so changes are required to be shared. What's the objection?
  - kick 7y ago
    GPL doesn't prevent you from using it on mobile devices, it prevents you from making changes to his code proprietary. You seem to just want to release proprietary software. You should say that out loud if so!
    - arianvanp 7y ago
      That's not what OP said at all. Apple _forces_ you to make proprietary changes to your application (and doesn't allow you to publish the source code of that modification). There is no way to have both a GPL-compliant app and have it on the app store at the same time.
nirs 7y ago
Can you explain how GPL prohibits distribution via app stores?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- shmerl 7y ago
  I think Apple bans strong copyleft licenses somehow, by having store requirements that aren't compatible with them. I'm not sure about details.
- csande17 7y ago
  According to the FSF, the App Store is incompatible with the GPL because its Terms of Service restricts what people can do with the apps they download: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store...
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    That verbiage no longer seems to appear in the EULA.
- slipheen 7y ago
  Some people argue that the GPL2's clause "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." is violated because you need to agree to additional terms from Apple to use the apps. https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance In this case however, the code is under the GPLv3, which is far more problematic. It contains a "anti-tivoization" clause, which says you cannot require any "methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions"
  - tzs 7y ago
    > In this case however, the code is under the GPLv3, which is far more problematic. It contains a "anti-tivoization" clause, which says you cannot require any "methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions". That doesn't actually apply to the Apple app store. The "anti-tivoization" clause is narrowly written to only cover what Tivo did. Namely, providing hardware with locked down firmware. This is the trigger for the "anti-tivoization" clause: > 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. A "User Product" is: > either (1) a “consumer product”, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling. When someone downloads an app from the Apple app store for their iPhone, the iPhone is the "User Product", and the transaction is not one in which "the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient", and so the "anti-tivoization" does not apply.
fulafel 7y ago
Why would GPL prevent distribution via app stores? I think I have at least one GPL app installed that way.
- e12e 7y ago
  While some comments here mention freedom zero (ability to run the program) another problem with ios is that you can only build on Apple hardware - so there's limits on how you can distribute and use changes.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    This is only really a convenience limitation; it’s possible to run the iOS toolchain on other platforms with a significant amount of work. In any case, I can’t see GPL’s clause on distribution and modification kicking in here.

by ex3ndr 7y ago

jlund 7y ago

https://signal.org/blog/license-update/ https://signal.org/blog/license-update/

ex3ndr 7y ago
Aha, yeah: https://github.com/signalapp/curve25519-java/issues/5 https://github.com/signalapp/curve25519-java/issues/5
- slipheen 7y ago
  It sounds like he addressed the point you raised (App Stores) even though he'd prefer to keep it GPL so changes are required to be shared. What's the objection?
- kick 7y ago
  GPL doesn't prevent you from using it on mobile devices, it prevents you from making changes to his code proprietary. You seem to just want to release proprietary software. You should say that out loud if so!
  - arianvanp 7y ago
    That's not what OP said at all. Apple _forces_ you to make proprietary changes to your application (and doesn't allow you to publish the source code of that modification). There is no way to have both a GPL-compliant app and have it on the app store at the same time.

nirs 7y ago

Can you explain how GPL prohibits distribution via app stores?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
shmerl 7y ago
I think Apple bans strong copyleft licenses somehow, by having store requirements that aren't compatible with them. I'm not sure about details.
csande17 7y ago
According to the FSF, the App Store is incompatible with the GPL because its Terms of Service restricts what people can do with the apps they download: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store...
- saagarjha 7y ago
  That verbiage no longer seems to appear in the EULA.
slipheen 7y ago
Some people argue that the GPL2's clause "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." is violated because you need to agree to additional terms from Apple to use the apps. https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance In this case however, the code is under the GPLv3, which is far more problematic. It contains a "anti-tivoization" clause, which says you cannot require any "methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions"
- tzs 7y ago
  > In this case however, the code is under the GPLv3, which is far more problematic. It contains a "anti-tivoization" clause, which says you cannot require any "methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions". That doesn't actually apply to the Apple app store. The "anti-tivoization" clause is narrowly written to only cover what Tivo did. Namely, providing hardware with locked down firmware. This is the trigger for the "anti-tivoization" clause: > 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. A "User Product" is: > either (1) a “consumer product”, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling. When someone downloads an app from the Apple app store for their iPhone, the iPhone is the "User Product", and the transaction is not one in which "the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient", and so the "anti-tivoization" does not apply.

fulafel 7y ago

Why would GPL prevent distribution via app stores? I think I have at least one GPL app installed that way.

e12e 7y ago
While some comments here mention freedom zero (ability to run the program) another problem with ios is that you can only build on Apple hardware - so there's limits on how you can distribute and use changes.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  This is only really a convenience limitation; it’s possible to run the iOS toolchain on other platforms with a significant amount of work. In any case, I can’t see GPL’s clause on distribution and modification kicking in here.