4 ms·

Not true at all - you can modify the source code from open source apps, build, and install on your own device without asking permission from Apple or paying a f

Not true at all - you can modify the source code from open source apps, build, and install on your own device without asking permission from Apple or paying a fee for a developer license. The only control Apple has is over app distribution.

kmeisthax 6y ago
Yes, but if you take the software from the App Store, you are bound by App Store TOS. The TOS supercedes any Free Software rights you may have had from the license; and prohibits you from redistributing the software, which trips GPL's no-further-restrictions clause. Of course, you can take both sets of terms for the App Store and a self-compiled version, and you can then distribute modifications to the source code of the self-compiled version under GPL terms. But you cannot upload software to the App Store under GPL terms without violating the GPL. In practice, this means you cannot actually put GPL applications on iOS unless you get a CLA from every developer on the project. This means a lot of perfectly good GPL-licensed applications will never actually get ported to iOS. You'll never see, say, Blender or Krita on iPad until and unless they CLA all their developers so that they can actually distribute the port legally. If Blender Foundation or whoever runs Krita does have a CLA requirement for contributors, then consider that particular example corrected, but my point still stands: You should be able to distribute GPL software on the App Store and have the GPL terms supercede the App Store TOS.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > In practice, this means you cannot actually put GPL applications on iOS unless you get a CLA from every developer on the project. Again, simply not true. If you obtain the source code, build, and run your own iOS apps on your own device you have no issues with GPL compliance. Honestly I'm disappointed that more open source projects don't go this route. Blender could easily provide an xcode project that anyone can build and run on their device outside the app store. They choose not to, but there's nothing stopping them.
  - wvenable 6y ago
    As long as you have a valid developer certificate to sign the app and you have a development provisioning profile and your device is registered as a test device. For that you need to be registered as an iPhone Developer Program member ($99). And you have to constantly renew your profile.
    - mullingitover 6y ago
      > For that you need to be registered as an iPhone Developer Program member ($99) Again, simply not true. You don't need a paid developer license for local installs, and this has been the case for a very long time.
      - wvenable 6y ago
        But then the app only works on your device for 7 days.
        silly-silly 6y ago
        7 days longer than you should own an idevice.
    - Nullabillity 6y ago
      And you need to have a Mac. Because reasons, I guess.
  - kmeisthax 6y ago
    That's entirely impractical. "Hey, want to run Blender on your iPad? Just buy a $600+ real computer and install a bunch of cross-compilation tools on it then sideload the app every seven days before it expires! It's so easy!" Sideloading Blender misses the point. If you need to buy a real computer to compile Blender, then you already have a computer to just run Blender on directly. Furthermore, sideloading isn't exactly Apple-sanctioned. It's actually fairly cumbersome: you either need a Mac to run Xcode on, or you have to run a piece of third-party software that you put your iCloud password into, which then uses some Mail/iTunes plugins to forcibly resign and sync your IPA. Oh, and you need to redo that every seven days or the app breaks. Furthermore, Apple could break or prohibit sideloading at any moment and you would have no recourse. If sideloading was a useful way to distribute software, Epic would be distributing a sideloadable EGS and Fortnite on iOS right now.
heavyset_go 6y ago
Apple actively bans GPL software from the App Store because the GPL precludes distribution of GPL apps under the App Store's terms. Distribution under the App Store's terms is a GPL violation itself.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  Can you provide some examples of apps Apple has removed? Because, counterexample, Telegram is licensed under GPL and is has not been actively banned from the app store.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    VLC was removed from the App Store by Apple[1], and had to be re-released under a dual license that allowed App Store distribution. GNU Go faced the same licensing issue[2]. This is a topic that was discussed on HN several years ago[3][4]. > Because, counterexample, Telegram is licensed under GPL and is has not been actively banned from the app store. As long as Telegram owns the IP for the app, or has contributors sign a CLA that allows for relicensing, nothing is stopping them from distributing the app under the GPL and distributing it under an App Store friendly license. Taking GPL code that you do not own the IP of, or that you do not have a license to distribute under your own terms, and distributing it under the App Store terms is a violation of the GPL. [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/no-gpl-apps-for-apples-app-store/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/no-gpl-apps-for-apples-app-sto... [2] https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2083723 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2083723 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1379662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1379662
    - mullingitover 6y ago
      These aren't examples of Apple unilaterally removing GPL'd apps, these were examples where the creator contacted Apple with demands and Apple complied by removing the apps. The GPL issues are more to do with GPL fans being overly pedantic about the license. The source code can be shared outside the app store, the only thing the app store build/signature is doing is baking in the app store wrappers which aren't adding extra functionality. By this logic, distributing a signed build of a GPL app would violate the license.
anfilt 6y ago
I would hardly call it being able to run the app on a device for only 7 days before the app no longer runs not having to pay for apple. You still need a developer account to sign your app with a digital signature blessed by apple otherwise after 7 days it no longer will run.

kmeisthax 6y ago

Yes, but if you take the software from the App Store, you are bound by App Store TOS. The TOS supercedes any Free Software rights you may have had from the license; and prohibits you from redistributing the software, which trips GPL's no-further-restrictions clause. Of course, you can take both sets of terms for the App Store and a self-compiled version, and you can then distribute modifications to the source code of the self-compiled version under GPL terms. But you cannot upload software to the App Store under GPL terms without violating the GPL. In practice, this means you cannot actually put GPL applications on iOS unless you get a CLA from every developer on the project. This means a lot of perfectly good GPL-licensed applications will never actually get ported to iOS. You'll never see, say, Blender or Krita on iPad until and unless they CLA all their developers so that they can actually distribute the port legally. If Blender Foundation or whoever runs Krita does have a CLA requirement for contributors, then consider that particular example corrected, but my point still stands: You should be able to distribute GPL software on the App Store and have the GPL terms supercede the App Store TOS.

mullingitover 6y ago
> In practice, this means you cannot actually put GPL applications on iOS unless you get a CLA from every developer on the project. Again, simply not true. If you obtain the source code, build, and run your own iOS apps on your own device you have no issues with GPL compliance. Honestly I'm disappointed that more open source projects don't go this route. Blender could easily provide an xcode project that anyone can build and run on their device outside the app store. They choose not to, but there's nothing stopping them.
- wvenable 6y ago
  As long as you have a valid developer certificate to sign the app and you have a development provisioning profile and your device is registered as a test device. For that you need to be registered as an iPhone Developer Program member ($99). And you have to constantly renew your profile.
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    > For that you need to be registered as an iPhone Developer Program member ($99) Again, simply not true. You don't need a paid developer license for local installs, and this has been the case for a very long time.
    - wvenable 6y ago
      But then the app only works on your device for 7 days.
      - silly-silly 6y ago
        7 days longer than you should own an idevice.
  - Nullabillity 6y ago
    And you need to have a Mac. Because reasons, I guess.
- kmeisthax 6y ago
  That's entirely impractical. "Hey, want to run Blender on your iPad? Just buy a $600+ real computer and install a bunch of cross-compilation tools on it then sideload the app every seven days before it expires! It's so easy!" Sideloading Blender misses the point. If you need to buy a real computer to compile Blender, then you already have a computer to just run Blender on directly. Furthermore, sideloading isn't exactly Apple-sanctioned. It's actually fairly cumbersome: you either need a Mac to run Xcode on, or you have to run a piece of third-party software that you put your iCloud password into, which then uses some Mail/iTunes plugins to forcibly resign and sync your IPA. Oh, and you need to redo that every seven days or the app breaks. Furthermore, Apple could break or prohibit sideloading at any moment and you would have no recourse. If sideloading was a useful way to distribute software, Epic would be distributing a sideloadable EGS and Fortnite on iOS right now.

heavyset_go 6y ago

Apple actively bans GPL software from the App Store because the GPL precludes distribution of GPL apps under the App Store's terms. Distribution under the App Store's terms is a GPL violation itself.

mullingitover 6y ago
Can you provide some examples of apps Apple has removed? Because, counterexample, Telegram is licensed under GPL and is has not been actively banned from the app store.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  VLC was removed from the App Store by Apple[1], and had to be re-released under a dual license that allowed App Store distribution. GNU Go faced the same licensing issue[2]. This is a topic that was discussed on HN several years ago[3][4]. > Because, counterexample, Telegram is licensed under GPL and is has not been actively banned from the app store. As long as Telegram owns the IP for the app, or has contributors sign a CLA that allows for relicensing, nothing is stopping them from distributing the app under the GPL and distributing it under an App Store friendly license. Taking GPL code that you do not own the IP of, or that you do not have a license to distribute under your own terms, and distributing it under the App Store terms is a violation of the GPL. [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/no-gpl-apps-for-apples-app-store/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/no-gpl-apps-for-apples-app-sto... [2] https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2083723 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2083723 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1379662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1379662
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    These aren't examples of Apple unilaterally removing GPL'd apps, these were examples where the creator contacted Apple with demands and Apple complied by removing the apps. The GPL issues are more to do with GPL fans being overly pedantic about the license. The source code can be shared outside the app store, the only thing the app store build/signature is doing is baking in the app store wrappers which aren't adding extra functionality. By this logic, distributing a signed build of a GPL app would violate the license.

anfilt 6y ago

I would hardly call it being able to run the app on a device for only 7 days before the app no longer runs not having to pay for apple. You still need a developer account to sign your app with a digital signature blessed by apple otherwise after 7 days it no longer will run.