11 ms·

Not sure if this has changed, but at least on why it's not on iOS [1]: > In a nutshell, the Apple Developer Agreement is the biggest "problem" preventing a Pi

Not sure if this has changed, but at least on why it's not on iOS [1]: > In a nutshell, the Apple Developer Agreement is the biggest "problem" preventing a Pidgin build for iOS devices. We won't quote the exact text here, but the Agreement requires that developers allow Apple to impose additional restrictions on applications above and beyond the application's own license. Among these additional restrictions are the well-known "5-device limit" and a prohibition on redistribution of the application. It is also quite clear from the terms of the Agreement that the developer of an application is not the distributor of the application in the App Store--Apple is. > The additional restrictions required by Apple directly violate the GPL Pidgin is licensed under (Pidgin is licensed as "GPLv2 or later," and cannot transition to GPLv3 for a number of reasons not suited for this topic). GPLv2 forbids adding restrictions above and beyond those included in the GPL's own text, thus any distribution via Apple's App Store is a direct violation of the GPL. This is the root of the problem. https://developer.pidgin.im/wiki/WhyNoiOSVersion https://developer.pidgin.im/wiki/WhyNoiOSVersion

andai 6y ago
With such a commitment to free software, isn't it a bit ironic they ported it to Windows?
- Macha 6y ago
  Anyone can build and run their own software on Windows, so distributing software for Windows is not a GPL violation, whereas distributing iOS apps via the app store runs afoul of the anti-tivo clauses in GPL3
- moistbar 6y ago
  If Windows doesn't impose those restrictions, it makes more sense to port it there than to MacOS.
- mywittyname 6y ago
  No, it's not ironic. Windows imposes no such limitation on developers. Microsoft certainly doesn't assume exclusive rights to distribution of every piece of software that can be installed on Windows.
lxgr 6y ago
> the well-known "5-device limit" Sorry, but I'm not familiar with this – could you share more please?
- asah 6y ago
  https://www.google.com/search?q=Apple+Developer+Agreement+5+device+limit https://www.google.com/search?q=Apple+Developer+Agreement+5+... TIL it's now 10 devices...
  - RL_Quine 6y ago
    Why would that ever be a consideration?
    - lsaferite 6y ago
      Distribution restrictions on top of GPL and they don't own the copyright on all the code without a CLA which prevents licensing under something other than GPL for the App Store.
    - shoeffner 6y ago
      iPad, iPod, iPhone, MBP, iMac, AppleWatch, ... oh, that's already six devices tied to the same account. I think the idea is that you don't tie all your friends' devices to your account to share apps etc., but I am just guessing.
- RL_Quine 6y ago
  I can find no information about what limit they’re claiming. You can use a maximum of 5 different Apple ID simultaneously on a device but that’s pretty obscure.
  - dijit 6y ago
    it is 5 devices that you can use personally with an Apple ID (so, you as a single person can own 5 devices that can receive things you've paid for on the app store, like music and programs.). It has subsequently been increased to 10.
glitchc 6y ago
There’s an easy way to fix this. The Pidgin iOS app could be forked into a different licensing model. It also need not be open source, just demonstrate feature parity. Another way is to modularize the core messaging layer under a BSD license, and have the desktop app and iOS app both implement the front-end (and OS specific functionality) under distinct licenses. There are many ways to skin this cat.
- Macha 6y ago
  libpurple (the actual messaging library) is already modularised, many different people mantain[ed] different modules, it's been used my many third party messaging clients including Adium and multi-IM browser clients from those days like Meebo or imo. It's not a commercial project with a CLA, it doesn't have a single owner, many of the people who contributed major parts have moved on or would object to a license change from copyleft to permissive, so it's not a matter of "just change" the license. And libpurple is the real meat of the project.
  - virtue3 6y ago
    Meebo was the shit back then. (In browser GAIM, even fb chat, irc, etc). I followed a few of the developers for a bit as I really wanted to work there. I believed they got aquired into the g+ team (gchat? maybe?).
Nextgrid 6y ago
I don't understand the logic where releasing something under GPL + a restrictive license is considered worse than releasing under GPL only. What is lost when they make Pidgin available on the App Store (under the restrictive App Store license) + under GPL (on their website) as opposed to not having an App Store version in the first place and releasing under the GPL only? I don't see how the presence of a second, more restrictive license invalidates the GPL given that anyone willing to take advantage of something not allowed under the more restrictive license can still do so under GPL?
- toast0 6y ago
  If they don't have the ability to change the license (which it sounds like they might not; most likely some of the code is owned by others?), they can't distribute it under GPL + more restrictive terms, because what would be lost is their license to distribute the code.
- rcxdude 6y ago
  The maintainers likely don't own the copyright on the entire codebase, and so likely cannot license it under anything other than the GPL. Incorporating GPL code into an app on the app store is not possible without breaking either the app store's rules or the GPL's rules (most likely the GPL, which would effectively remove the maintainer's rights to distribute that code).
- amenod 6y ago
  GPL doesn't allow anyone to put too much restrictions on the software. This is the point - it protects users' interests.
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    But my point is that if the code itself remains under the GPL, how does publishing an alternate version of it "undo" the GPL considering all the rights restricted by the second license would still be available under the GPL?
    - 6y ago
faitswulff 6y ago
I wonder if you could just compile it to webassembly as a progressive web app at this point...

andai 6y ago

With such a commitment to free software, isn't it a bit ironic they ported it to Windows?

Macha 6y ago
Anyone can build and run their own software on Windows, so distributing software for Windows is not a GPL violation, whereas distributing iOS apps via the app store runs afoul of the anti-tivo clauses in GPL3
moistbar 6y ago
If Windows doesn't impose those restrictions, it makes more sense to port it there than to MacOS.
mywittyname 6y ago
No, it's not ironic. Windows imposes no such limitation on developers. Microsoft certainly doesn't assume exclusive rights to distribution of every piece of software that can be installed on Windows.

lxgr 6y ago

> the well-known "5-device limit" Sorry, but I'm not familiar with this – could you share more please?

asah 6y ago
https://www.google.com/search?q=Apple+Developer+Agreement+5+device+limit https://www.google.com/search?q=Apple+Developer+Agreement+5+... TIL it's now 10 devices...
- RL_Quine 6y ago
  Why would that ever be a consideration?
  - lsaferite 6y ago
    Distribution restrictions on top of GPL and they don't own the copyright on all the code without a CLA which prevents licensing under something other than GPL for the App Store.
  - shoeffner 6y ago
    iPad, iPod, iPhone, MBP, iMac, AppleWatch, ... oh, that's already six devices tied to the same account. I think the idea is that you don't tie all your friends' devices to your account to share apps etc., but I am just guessing.
RL_Quine 6y ago
I can find no information about what limit they’re claiming. You can use a maximum of 5 different Apple ID simultaneously on a device but that’s pretty obscure.
- dijit 6y ago
  it is 5 devices that you can use personally with an Apple ID (so, you as a single person can own 5 devices that can receive things you've paid for on the app store, like music and programs.). It has subsequently been increased to 10.

glitchc 6y ago

There’s an easy way to fix this. The Pidgin iOS app could be forked into a different licensing model. It also need not be open source, just demonstrate feature parity. Another way is to modularize the core messaging layer under a BSD license, and have the desktop app and iOS app both implement the front-end (and OS specific functionality) under distinct licenses. There are many ways to skin this cat.

Macha 6y ago
libpurple (the actual messaging library) is already modularised, many different people mantain[ed] different modules, it's been used my many third party messaging clients including Adium and multi-IM browser clients from those days like Meebo or imo. It's not a commercial project with a CLA, it doesn't have a single owner, many of the people who contributed major parts have moved on or would object to a license change from copyleft to permissive, so it's not a matter of "just change" the license. And libpurple is the real meat of the project.
- virtue3 6y ago
  Meebo was the shit back then. (In browser GAIM, even fb chat, irc, etc). I followed a few of the developers for a bit as I really wanted to work there. I believed they got aquired into the g+ team (gchat? maybe?).

Nextgrid 6y ago

I don't understand the logic where releasing something under GPL + a restrictive license is considered worse than releasing under GPL only. What is lost when they make Pidgin available on the App Store (under the restrictive App Store license) + under GPL (on their website) as opposed to not having an App Store version in the first place and releasing under the GPL only? I don't see how the presence of a second, more restrictive license invalidates the GPL given that anyone willing to take advantage of something not allowed under the more restrictive license can still do so under GPL?

toast0 6y ago
If they don't have the ability to change the license (which it sounds like they might not; most likely some of the code is owned by others?), they can't distribute it under GPL + more restrictive terms, because what would be lost is their license to distribute the code.
rcxdude 6y ago
The maintainers likely don't own the copyright on the entire codebase, and so likely cannot license it under anything other than the GPL. Incorporating GPL code into an app on the app store is not possible without breaking either the app store's rules or the GPL's rules (most likely the GPL, which would effectively remove the maintainer's rights to distribute that code).
amenod 6y ago
GPL doesn't allow anyone to put too much restrictions on the software. This is the point - it protects users' interests.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  But my point is that if the code itself remains under the GPL, how does publishing an alternate version of it "undo" the GPL considering all the rights restricted by the second license would still be available under the GPL?
  - 6y ago

faitswulff 6y ago

I wonder if you could just compile it to webassembly as a progressive web app at this point...