3 ms·

> Does GNU not (at times) restrict the distribution of software No, the GPL does not restrict the distribution of software. The GPL requires that source code b

> Does GNU not (at times) restrict the distribution of software No, the GPL does not restrict the distribution of software. The GPL requires that source code be made available. That's not remotely the same thing. The GPL also doesn't have anything to do with manual curation. The GPL is also, while we're on the subject, not a platform. The GPL does not prevent you from running GPL-licensed code on another system, or building your own system that interacts with GNU code. Apple does prevent all of those things. So ignoring that the GPL does not restrict the distribution of software[0] there's still this huge jump in logic you're making that starts with "here is a thing that resulted in good outcomes" and jumps to a completely separate concept and says "maybe this will also have good outcomes." But it's an Apples and Oranges comparison. It's like saying, "the GPL has resulted in good software. Maybe an increased federal minimum wage will also be good." Those two things aren't related to each other. > It seems self-evident that a lot of the privacy improvements in recent androids (like filesystem isolation in Android Q) probably would not have occurred without the impetus provided by Apple’s competitive pressure in this area It is also self evident that concepts like filesystem isolation do not require gatekeepers to work. The web has better security than your iPhone. It just does. And it doesn't require mandatory curation to get those benefits. It is possible to build systems that have good sandboxing controls without closing down platforms and installing gatekeepers that decide who is and isn't allowed to make software. Filesystem isolation is a good example of that. We can do things like retire persistent device advertising IDs without an app store. > it's not fair that GNU is restricting user freedoms because Microsoft isn't allowed to distribute code that links against GNU source No, Microsoft can distribute code that links against a GPL library, in fact if they link against a GPL-licensed source they are required to do so with the code they link. The lack of restrictions in the GPL is the reason why the GNU and the OSCI don't recognize "source-available" licenses like SSPL, which do actually restrict user freedom. The GPL is a different thing. We actually do want Microsoft to link to GPL code, and sometimes Microsoft does release code under the GPL, and we're all usually happy about it. [0]: In fact, if anything it's the opposite, it requires the distribution of software code (in some instances). The GPL is never going to tell you that you can't release something.

paulmd 6y ago
> No, the GNU does not restrict the distribution of software. The GNU requires that source code be made available. That's not remotely the same thing. GNU says you can't distribute their source unless their license terms are met. That's a restriction on distribution, yes. For example, it's not legal to distribute kernel source alongside CDDL licensed code like ZFS. If we were to apply your standard to Apple - Apple doesn't restrict what apps can get into the app store, they restrict what apps in the app store are allowed to do. You cannot request permissions you don't use, for example, but they don't say that "Facebook is allowed and Instagram is not". Any other application that does what Epic does would have been blocked too, that is the licensing requirement of Apple's software environment. > It is also self evident that concepts like filesystem isolation do not require gatekeepers to work I in fact never said they did, this is putting words into my mouth. I said there would have been no market impetus on Android to offer them without Apple doing them first. Which is self-evidently true as well - why are those features only being offered in Android Q? Why did it take 15 years? > So ignoring that the GNU does not restrict the distribution of software[0] there's still this huge jump in logic It's not a jump in logic, I'm asking you a very simple question: are there situations in which restrictions in certain "user freedoms" (such as the ability to receive CDDL code distributed alongside GPL code) produce an overall better outcome despite small-scale negative outcomes from players who do not comply with the overall licensing requirements? Just saying that is apples and oranges doesn't mean anything. Tell me why that's not true. Ultimately it is a microcosm of the paradox of tolerance. "The only thing that cannot be tolerated is intolerance itself". And similarly "The only freedom that cannot be tolerated is the freedom to violate user freedom" is the basis of both GPL and the Apple store license. If you want the app store where you can do anything, there is Android. Apple is attempting to provide a curated user experience. They aren't preventing you from buying Android, just doing a model they think is better for their users. And that's the freedom of contract in action. Their users have alternatives and are free to go elsewhere. Why don't you think they should be allowed to prefer that? Would it be OK to sue the GNU Foundation and force them to dual-license all existing code as BSD because copyleft is "anti-competitive"? Why or why not? If not, why should Apple be forced to alter their license agreement to allow third-party stores?
- 6y ago

paulmd 6y ago

> No, the GNU does not restrict the distribution of software. The GNU requires that source code be made available. That's not remotely the same thing. GNU says you can't distribute their source unless their license terms are met. That's a restriction on distribution, yes. For example, it's not legal to distribute kernel source alongside CDDL licensed code like ZFS. If we were to apply your standard to Apple - Apple doesn't restrict what apps can get into the app store, they restrict what apps in the app store are allowed to do. You cannot request permissions you don't use, for example, but they don't say that "Facebook is allowed and Instagram is not". Any other application that does what Epic does would have been blocked too, that is the licensing requirement of Apple's software environment. > It is also self evident that concepts like filesystem isolation do not require gatekeepers to work I in fact never said they did, this is putting words into my mouth. I said there would have been no market impetus on Android to offer them without Apple doing them first. Which is self-evidently true as well - why are those features only being offered in Android Q? Why did it take 15 years? > So ignoring that the GNU does not restrict the distribution of software[0] there's still this huge jump in logic It's not a jump in logic, I'm asking you a very simple question: are there situations in which restrictions in certain "user freedoms" (such as the ability to receive CDDL code distributed alongside GPL code) produce an overall better outcome despite small-scale negative outcomes from players who do not comply with the overall licensing requirements? Just saying that is apples and oranges doesn't mean anything. Tell me why that's not true. Ultimately it is a microcosm of the paradox of tolerance. "The only thing that cannot be tolerated is intolerance itself". And similarly "The only freedom that cannot be tolerated is the freedom to violate user freedom" is the basis of both GPL and the Apple store license. If you want the app store where you can do anything, there is Android. Apple is attempting to provide a curated user experience. They aren't preventing you from buying Android, just doing a model they think is better for their users. And that's the freedom of contract in action. Their users have alternatives and are free to go elsewhere. Why don't you think they should be allowed to prefer that? Would it be OK to sue the GNU Foundation and force them to dual-license all existing code as BSD because copyleft is "anti-competitive"? Why or why not? If not, why should Apple be forced to alter their license agreement to allow third-party stores?

6y ago