6 ms·

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

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.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - tzs 6y ago
    They could probably sue Apple, too. When someone buys something on the App Store, the store makes a copy and distributes a copy to the purchaser. If that copy is infringing, then the entity that makes and distributes the copy (i.e., Apple) should be liable. That they received their initial copy from someone else (i.e., Automatic) who told them that they had the rights to make and authorize making and distribution of copies wouldn't protect Apple from suit. It would just mean that in turn Apple would be able to sue Automatic to make them pay any damages and costs Apple incurs over the matter.
    - the_gipsy 6y ago
      IANAL but I don't think Apple is liable in this case. It sounds just like websites not being responsible for user created content. They do have to remove illegal content, and must have means to report and act on it, but you can't e.g. sue hackernews because someone posts a torrent of a Marvel movie.
      - tzs 6y ago
        All the elements for copyright infringement would be there: (1) Apple made copies and distributed those copies, (2) Apple is not the copyright owner, and (3) Apple does not have a license from the copyright owner. Apple might not know it is infringing, and indeed might even think it has permission because the developer told it the developer had made sure all the licensing was in order, but the defendant's mental state in a case of direct copyright infringement is not relevant. Copyright infringement does not have a mens rea, at least in the US. "[i]ntention to infringe is not essential under the Act.", Buck v. Jewell-Lasalle Realty Co., 283 U.S. 191, 198 (1931). The website shield against liability for user created content that is most often used is from section 230 of the CDA. That specifically carves out an exception to the shield for anything relating to intellectual property, so 230 is out. The DMCA looks like it might work. The people claiming infringement could send a DMCA take down request to Apple, and Apple could take down the content and give them the contact information necessary to sue Automatic, and that should get Apple out of the loop. But DMCA has limitations, too. If a service provider is infringing themselves, or acts in concert with the people providing the infringing material, then the DMCA safe harbors may not apply. Acting in concert is more than just providing hosting, and I have no idea if Apple does enough more to reach acting in concert. There's some interesting Q&As about DMCA safe harbors at https://assets.fenwick.com/legacy/FenwickDocuments/DMCA-QA.pdf https://assets.fenwick.com/legacy/FenwickDocuments/DMCA-QA.p...
saagarjha 6y ago
> The App Store TOS specifically prohibits you from redistributing any app you download from it. Do you have a link that is recent and actually quotes the current EULA for the App Store? I do not think anyone has reviewed this in many years.
tzs 6y ago
> GPLv3 would be even worse as you cannot provide Installation Instructions. Minor correction: it's "Installation Information", not "Installation Instructions". Bigger correction: The GPLv3 Installation Information requirement does not apply to programs sold via software stores for use on devices that the user already has. It only applies to the conveyance of: > 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 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. This section of GPLv3 was to address the TiVo situation, where you had hardware that shipped with GPL software and source but required signed binaries so that if you used that source to build updated firmware you could not run it. The GPLv3 authors specifically tied this section to software that you get along with the hardware. I've never looked into why they decided to limit it like that. Anyone happen to know the reasons?
- anticensor 6y ago
  If they did not limit like that, developers would complain that this licence goes too far. Have you never heard of MongoDB SSPL incident? Do you wish GNU GPL to become an unpreferred software licence like SSPL is?

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.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tzs 6y ago
  They could probably sue Apple, too. When someone buys something on the App Store, the store makes a copy and distributes a copy to the purchaser. If that copy is infringing, then the entity that makes and distributes the copy (i.e., Apple) should be liable. That they received their initial copy from someone else (i.e., Automatic) who told them that they had the rights to make and authorize making and distribution of copies wouldn't protect Apple from suit. It would just mean that in turn Apple would be able to sue Automatic to make them pay any damages and costs Apple incurs over the matter.
  - the_gipsy 6y ago
    IANAL but I don't think Apple is liable in this case. It sounds just like websites not being responsible for user created content. They do have to remove illegal content, and must have means to report and act on it, but you can't e.g. sue hackernews because someone posts a torrent of a Marvel movie.
    - tzs 6y ago
      All the elements for copyright infringement would be there: (1) Apple made copies and distributed those copies, (2) Apple is not the copyright owner, and (3) Apple does not have a license from the copyright owner. Apple might not know it is infringing, and indeed might even think it has permission because the developer told it the developer had made sure all the licensing was in order, but the defendant's mental state in a case of direct copyright infringement is not relevant. Copyright infringement does not have a mens rea, at least in the US. "[i]ntention to infringe is not essential under the Act.", Buck v. Jewell-Lasalle Realty Co., 283 U.S. 191, 198 (1931). The website shield against liability for user created content that is most often used is from section 230 of the CDA. That specifically carves out an exception to the shield for anything relating to intellectual property, so 230 is out. The DMCA looks like it might work. The people claiming infringement could send a DMCA take down request to Apple, and Apple could take down the content and give them the contact information necessary to sue Automatic, and that should get Apple out of the loop. But DMCA has limitations, too. If a service provider is infringing themselves, or acts in concert with the people providing the infringing material, then the DMCA safe harbors may not apply. Acting in concert is more than just providing hosting, and I have no idea if Apple does enough more to reach acting in concert. There's some interesting Q&As about DMCA safe harbors at https://assets.fenwick.com/legacy/FenwickDocuments/DMCA-QA.pdf https://assets.fenwick.com/legacy/FenwickDocuments/DMCA-QA.p...

saagarjha 6y ago

> The App Store TOS specifically prohibits you from redistributing any app you download from it. Do you have a link that is recent and actually quotes the current EULA for the App Store? I do not think anyone has reviewed this in many years.

tzs 6y ago

> GPLv3 would be even worse as you cannot provide Installation Instructions. Minor correction: it's "Installation Information", not "Installation Instructions". Bigger correction: The GPLv3 Installation Information requirement does not apply to programs sold via software stores for use on devices that the user already has. It only applies to the conveyance of: > 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 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. This section of GPLv3 was to address the TiVo situation, where you had hardware that shipped with GPL software and source but required signed binaries so that if you used that source to build updated firmware you could not run it. The GPLv3 authors specifically tied this section to software that you get along with the hardware. I've never looked into why they decided to limit it like that. Anyone happen to know the reasons?

anticensor 6y ago
If they did not limit like that, developers would complain that this licence goes too far. Have you never heard of MongoDB SSPL incident? Do you wish GNU GPL to become an unpreferred software licence like SSPL is?