7 ms·

The tl;dr seems to be that Apple pulled it because it's just a white-labeled build of Riley's (of AltStore fame) Delta/GBA4iOS, not because it's an emulator. Th

The tl;dr seems to be that Apple pulled it because it's just a white-labeled build of Riley's (of AltStore fame) Delta/GBA4iOS, not because it's an emulator. The README on Riley's repo says: > Due to the licensing of emulator cores used by Delta, I have no choice but to distribute Delta under the AGPLv3 license. That being said, I explicitly give permission for anyone to use, modify, and distribute all my original code for this project in any form, with or without attribution, without fear of legal consequences — unless you plan to submit your app to Apple’s App Store, in which case written permission from me is explicitly required. So it sounds like Apple is going out of their way to enforce the non-standard licensing clause of some third-party developer (who until this weekend would have been considered a somewhat hostile party from Apple's perspective)? Is there any precedent for this, or is it just a convenient excuse?

hiatus 3y ago
I see this in the bitbucket readme: > The GBA4iOS codebase is distributed under the GNU GPLv2 license. That being said, I explicitly give permission for anyone to use, modify, and distribute my original code for this project without fear of legal consequences — unless you plan to submit your app to Apple’s App Store, in which case written permission from me is explicitly required. Dependencies remain under their original licenses. It says it is GPL then adds additional terms—is that even allowed by the license?
- layer8 3y ago
  I’m very doubtful that it is, since an important goal of the GPL is to prevent such restrictions in derived works.
  - ikiris 3y ago
    That argument would have to be made by the actual owner of the copyright though
    - layer8 3y ago
      Apple shouldn’t act as a judge here in either case.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      The text of the GPL automatically grants a license to all derivative works without the original author having to do anything explicitly, if I understand it corretly: > Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein [...] So while the original author(s) could file license infringement terms against the author of the derivative software, they don't have to in order for third parties to be able to use the derivative under the terms of the GPLv2. At least that's my read on the GPL, and it matches the expected outcome – I'm not a lawyer and I'm not aware of any court cases focusing on this particular clause.
      - ikiris 3y ago
        That has nothing to do with who has standing to actually enforce the underlying copyright for the part that would be infringed under a violation of the relevant portion of the license.
- bombcar 3y ago
  GPL doesn't let you restrict it further via added clauses, but it does let you be more general under other licenses. So that "I explicitly give" is a separate license you can use the code under, the GBA4iOS license, if you will, which is for anything but the App Store.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    GBA4iOS includes GPL-ed code though, so the author can't just be granting additional licenses like that (without the permission of all of the authors of the GPL-ed code he's including).
  - joshuaissac 3y ago
    If you own the covered work, then in some jurisdictions, you have the right to license it under the GPL plus additional restrictions (that cannot be removed under the 'Additional Terms' clause of the GPL). This was previously discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30712215 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30712215 It is more complicated in this scenario where GPL-licensed code written by other people is involved.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      Or where it's mixed; where some may be GPL-only but yours can't be used unless you agree to another clause, etc. However, it's pretty obvious the intent whatever the wording and machinations may be.
      - joshuaissac 3y ago
        Where it is mixed, the derivative work would usually be expected to be made available under the terms of the GPL, because the copyright held by the creators of the original work includes the right to create and distribute derivative works. The licensor of the derivative work can refuse to give you a licence unless you agree to some other terms (e.g., money, and/or the right to terminate the business relationship if you exercise your GPL rights), but those terms cannot directly prevent you from exercising your GPL rights, or the licensor would be in violation of the GPL.
- o11c 3y ago
  It's allowed since it strictly grants additional permissions. If Apple allowed GPL code then the restriction wouldn't be valid, but as it is it is only a restriction to the additional permission.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    > It's allowed since it strictly grants additional permissions. From the repo: > written permission from me is explicitly required That does not sound like an additional permission to me.
    - o11c 3y ago
      It's only a restriction to the "that being said" clause; it does not affect the GPL possibility.
      - lxgr 3y ago
        It's at least very ambiguously worded, and a lot of confusion could be avoided by just explicitly stating it as "License: AGPLv2 (everything); additional/optional license for parts written by me: do-what-you-want-but-email-me-for-app-store license v0.1".
- Qwertious 3y ago
  He's basically offering a dual license: GPL, and also his custom "do whatever, except Apple Apps store (unless explicit permission from me)". The dual license only applies to the code he personally wrote though, not the dependencies.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    That's not how the GPL works, though. He's including GPL-ed code, which means he must make his own code available under the GPL (without additional restrictions) as well. Of course he can make his code (and only his code) alone also available under a more or less restrictive license, but anybody would be free to ignore all additional restrictions and just follow the GPL.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
ikiris 3y ago
If by going out of their way, you mean not wanting to get in a copyright dispute where they hold liability with a likely copyright holder outside of more complicated legal claims on a project they don’t particularly want in the store anyway, sure
galad87 3y ago
Yes, Apple will take down apps that are blatant redistribution without license of open-source software. Years ago I made a simple utility app and put the code on GitHub, someone took the code, changed the name, and uploaded it on the App Store with a 8$ price. It was taken down after I contacted Apple.
asddubs 3y ago
of course they have to enforce other peoples licenses, otherwise they're distributing stolen code. It's AGPL, which is probably not compatible with the app store license, and the code by Delta is also distributed under a custom license forbidding uploading to the app store. I don't think it's a non-standard AGPL clause, it's just multi-licensing in a very informal way
- lxgr 3y ago
  You can't multi-license other people's GPL-ed code (without them explicitly re-licensing it to you allowing that, in any case).
  - asddubs 3y ago
    The wording: >That being said, I explicitly give permission for anyone to use, modify, and distribute all _my original code_ for this project in any form, with or without attribution, without fear of legal consequences — unless you plan to submit your app to Apple’s App Store, in which case written permission from me is explicitly required. so they're not doing that
    - lxgr 3y ago
      That’s one read of the implicit brackets here, and maybe the intended one, but I think the ambiguity next to “fear of legal consequences” might make a lawyer a bit nervous.

hiatus 3y ago

I see this in the bitbucket readme: > The GBA4iOS codebase is distributed under the GNU GPLv2 license. That being said, I explicitly give permission for anyone to use, modify, and distribute my original code for this project without fear of legal consequences — unless you plan to submit your app to Apple’s App Store, in which case written permission from me is explicitly required. Dependencies remain under their original licenses. It says it is GPL then adds additional terms—is that even allowed by the license?

layer8 3y ago
I’m very doubtful that it is, since an important goal of the GPL is to prevent such restrictions in derived works.
- ikiris 3y ago
  That argument would have to be made by the actual owner of the copyright though
  - layer8 3y ago
    Apple shouldn’t act as a judge here in either case.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    The text of the GPL automatically grants a license to all derivative works without the original author having to do anything explicitly, if I understand it corretly: > Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein [...] So while the original author(s) could file license infringement terms against the author of the derivative software, they don't have to in order for third parties to be able to use the derivative under the terms of the GPLv2. At least that's my read on the GPL, and it matches the expected outcome – I'm not a lawyer and I'm not aware of any court cases focusing on this particular clause.
    - ikiris 3y ago
      That has nothing to do with who has standing to actually enforce the underlying copyright for the part that would be infringed under a violation of the relevant portion of the license.
bombcar 3y ago
GPL doesn't let you restrict it further via added clauses, but it does let you be more general under other licenses. So that "I explicitly give" is a separate license you can use the code under, the GBA4iOS license, if you will, which is for anything but the App Store.
- lxgr 3y ago
  GBA4iOS includes GPL-ed code though, so the author can't just be granting additional licenses like that (without the permission of all of the authors of the GPL-ed code he's including).
- joshuaissac 3y ago
  If you own the covered work, then in some jurisdictions, you have the right to license it under the GPL plus additional restrictions (that cannot be removed under the 'Additional Terms' clause of the GPL). This was previously discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30712215 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30712215 It is more complicated in this scenario where GPL-licensed code written by other people is involved.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Or where it's mixed; where some may be GPL-only but yours can't be used unless you agree to another clause, etc. However, it's pretty obvious the intent whatever the wording and machinations may be.
    - joshuaissac 3y ago
      Where it is mixed, the derivative work would usually be expected to be made available under the terms of the GPL, because the copyright held by the creators of the original work includes the right to create and distribute derivative works. The licensor of the derivative work can refuse to give you a licence unless you agree to some other terms (e.g., money, and/or the right to terminate the business relationship if you exercise your GPL rights), but those terms cannot directly prevent you from exercising your GPL rights, or the licensor would be in violation of the GPL.
o11c 3y ago
It's allowed since it strictly grants additional permissions. If Apple allowed GPL code then the restriction wouldn't be valid, but as it is it is only a restriction to the additional permission.
- lxgr 3y ago
  > It's allowed since it strictly grants additional permissions. From the repo: > written permission from me is explicitly required That does not sound like an additional permission to me.
  - o11c 3y ago
    It's only a restriction to the "that being said" clause; it does not affect the GPL possibility.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      It's at least very ambiguously worded, and a lot of confusion could be avoided by just explicitly stating it as "License: AGPLv2 (everything); additional/optional license for parts written by me: do-what-you-want-but-email-me-for-app-store license v0.1".
Qwertious 3y ago
He's basically offering a dual license: GPL, and also his custom "do whatever, except Apple Apps store (unless explicit permission from me)". The dual license only applies to the code he personally wrote though, not the dependencies.
- lxgr 3y ago
  That's not how the GPL works, though. He's including GPL-ed code, which means he must make his own code available under the GPL (without additional restrictions) as well. Of course he can make his code (and only his code) alone also available under a more or less restrictive license, but anybody would be free to ignore all additional restrictions and just follow the GPL.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

ikiris 3y ago

If by going out of their way, you mean not wanting to get in a copyright dispute where they hold liability with a likely copyright holder outside of more complicated legal claims on a project they don’t particularly want in the store anyway, sure

galad87 3y ago

Yes, Apple will take down apps that are blatant redistribution without license of open-source software. Years ago I made a simple utility app and put the code on GitHub, someone took the code, changed the name, and uploaded it on the App Store with a 8$ price. It was taken down after I contacted Apple.

asddubs 3y ago

of course they have to enforce other peoples licenses, otherwise they're distributing stolen code. It's AGPL, which is probably not compatible with the app store license, and the code by Delta is also distributed under a custom license forbidding uploading to the app store. I don't think it's a non-standard AGPL clause, it's just multi-licensing in a very informal way

lxgr 3y ago
You can't multi-license other people's GPL-ed code (without them explicitly re-licensing it to you allowing that, in any case).
- asddubs 3y ago
  The wording: >That being said, I explicitly give permission for anyone to use, modify, and distribute all _my original code_ for this project in any form, with or without attribution, without fear of legal consequences — unless you plan to submit your app to Apple’s App Store, in which case written permission from me is explicitly required. so they're not doing that
  - lxgr 3y ago
    That’s one read of the implicit brackets here, and maybe the intended one, but I think the ambiguity next to “fear of legal consequences” might make a lawyer a bit nervous.