4 ms·

They're lucky that Apple hasn't yet realized their app is GPLv2. They're going to end up purged from the app store altogether unless they relicense their codeba

They're lucky that Apple hasn't yet realized their app is GPLv2. They're going to end up purged from the app store altogether unless they relicense their codebase, no matter what they end up deciding to do with IAP.

YetAnotherNick 6y ago
What's the problem with GPLv2 licensed app?
- detaro 6y ago
  Short version of the usual argument: GPL says you can't add restrictions on what a user can do when you distribute an app. App Store terms of service do add restrictions, so distributing an GPL app through the app store is a license violation.
  - duskwuff 6y ago
    But in this case it doesn't matter, because Automattic is the owner of the application, not a licensee -- they can relicense the application if they want, and they're implicitly doing so here. It does make the source code effectively unusable by anyone downstream, though.
    - floatingatoll 6y ago
      Do they own GPLv2-licensed commits to their codebase introduced by accepting pull requests from contributors?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - detaro 6y ago
      They don't ask for CLAs as far as I know, so they don't if they take any contributions.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    You may opt out of the usual App Store restrictions for your application.
    - detaro 6y ago
      Oh, did they add that? Interesting, do you happen to have a link with more details handy? I remember some GPL projects having license exceptions to allow app store usage.
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        Very top of https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/dev/stdeula/ https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/dev/std... > Your license to each App is subject to your prior acceptance of either this Licensed Application End User License Agreement (“Standard EULA”), or a custom end user license agreement between you and the Application Provider (“Custom EULA”), if one is provided. Most of the other things mentioned are “you can’t do this, unless custom EULA say you can”. And the custom EULA can be fairly broad, the only real restrictions on it that I saw was that you can’t pretend like you’re Apple in it.
    - floatingatoll 6y ago
      This is excellent news.
- kmeisthax 6y ago
  The App Store TOS specifically prohibits you from redistributing any app you download from it. GPLv2 specifically prohibits that, so any distribution of an app under GPLv2 terms is a license violation. GPLv3 would be even worse as you cannot provide Installation Instructions. However, WordPress/Automattic has copyright ownership, which means GPLv2 terms don't apply. If you get the app from the App Store, then the App Store terms apply, and if you downloaded the source code from GitHub, then you have GPLv2 terms and can compile and install it yourself. However, you cannot legally submit, say, a modified WordPress app with GPLv2 code in it back to the App Store. This gets tricky if WordPress accepts pull requests under GPLv2 terms, though, as they would then be bound by those terms and no longer be able to offer App Store terms. This is why some Free Software projects require CLAs, so they can both have a strict copyleft and still be on app stores that don't allow that to happen. Funnily enough I'm pretty sure Microsoft realized this problem, and added an explicit waiver of Microsoft Store TOS terms for software distributed under Free Software terms. I haven't actually checked their TOS in a long while, though, so I may be misremembering things.
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    They openly encourage users to submit contributions in the form of pull requests ^1; they seem to accept pull requests without any special statement of licensing contrary to the GPLv2 repo license ^2; and, they do not openly state in the GitHub repo's Contributor Guidelines any CLA requirement that would permit them to relicense GPLv2 contributions that they merge ^3. (IANYL) ^1 https://apps.wordpress.com/contribute/ https://apps.wordpress.com/contribute/ ^2 https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-iOS/blob/develop/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-iOS/blob/devel... ^3 https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-iOS/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-iOS/blob/devel...
    - nicky0 6y ago
      The point is that Apple doesn't care if there's GPL code, so it doesn't matter if they "realize" as you said in your original comment. If anything, the project contributors could sue Automattic for violating the terms of their contribution.
Someone 6y ago
Does Apple have any objection to having apps built from GPL-licensed source? I thought it’s the GPL license that has objections against running on iOS because of the restrictions of the platform (people who licensed your app cannot deploy it). Also, GPLv3 is stricter in that than GPLv2.

YetAnotherNick 6y ago

What's the problem with GPLv2 licensed app?

detaro 6y ago
Short version of the usual argument: GPL says you can't add restrictions on what a user can do when you distribute an app. App Store terms of service do add restrictions, so distributing an GPL app through the app store is a license violation.
- duskwuff 6y ago
  But in this case it doesn't matter, because Automattic is the owner of the application, not a licensee -- they can relicense the application if they want, and they're implicitly doing so here. It does make the source code effectively unusable by anyone downstream, though.
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    Do they own GPLv2-licensed commits to their codebase introduced by accepting pull requests from contributors?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - detaro 6y ago
    They don't ask for CLAs as far as I know, so they don't if they take any contributions.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  You may opt out of the usual App Store restrictions for your application.
  - detaro 6y ago
    Oh, did they add that? Interesting, do you happen to have a link with more details handy? I remember some GPL projects having license exceptions to allow app store usage.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      Very top of https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/dev/stdeula/ https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/dev/std... > Your license to each App is subject to your prior acceptance of either this Licensed Application End User License Agreement (“Standard EULA”), or a custom end user license agreement between you and the Application Provider (“Custom EULA”), if one is provided. Most of the other things mentioned are “you can’t do this, unless custom EULA say you can”. And the custom EULA can be fairly broad, the only real restrictions on it that I saw was that you can’t pretend like you’re Apple in it.
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    This is excellent news.
kmeisthax 6y ago
The App Store TOS specifically prohibits you from redistributing any app you download from it. GPLv2 specifically prohibits that, so any distribution of an app under GPLv2 terms is a license violation. GPLv3 would be even worse as you cannot provide Installation Instructions. However, WordPress/Automattic has copyright ownership, which means GPLv2 terms don't apply. If you get the app from the App Store, then the App Store terms apply, and if you downloaded the source code from GitHub, then you have GPLv2 terms and can compile and install it yourself. However, you cannot legally submit, say, a modified WordPress app with GPLv2 code in it back to the App Store. This gets tricky if WordPress accepts pull requests under GPLv2 terms, though, as they would then be bound by those terms and no longer be able to offer App Store terms. This is why some Free Software projects require CLAs, so they can both have a strict copyleft and still be on app stores that don't allow that to happen. Funnily enough I'm pretty sure Microsoft realized this problem, and added an explicit waiver of Microsoft Store TOS terms for software distributed under Free Software terms. I haven't actually checked their TOS in a long while, though, so I may be misremembering things.
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  They openly encourage users to submit contributions in the form of pull requests ^1; they seem to accept pull requests without any special statement of licensing contrary to the GPLv2 repo license ^2; and, they do not openly state in the GitHub repo's Contributor Guidelines any CLA requirement that would permit them to relicense GPLv2 contributions that they merge ^3. (IANYL) ^1 https://apps.wordpress.com/contribute/ https://apps.wordpress.com/contribute/ ^2 https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-iOS/blob/develop/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-iOS/blob/devel... ^3 https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-iOS/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-iOS/blob/devel...
  - nicky0 6y ago
    The point is that Apple doesn't care if there's GPL code, so it doesn't matter if they "realize" as you said in your original comment. If anything, the project contributors could sue Automattic for violating the terms of their contribution.

Someone 6y ago

Does Apple have any objection to having apps built from GPL-licensed source? I thought it’s the GPL license that has objections against running on iOS because of the restrictions of the platform (people who licensed your app cannot deploy it). Also, GPLv3 is stricter in that than GPLv2.