3 ms·

The source has a GPL license next to it, but there are additional licensing conditions that make it proprietary: > Licensing > The GBA4iOS codebase is distrib

The source has a GPL license next to it, but there are additional licensing conditions that make it proprietary: > Licensing > 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. (emphasis mine) https://bitbucket.org/rileytestut/gba4ios/src/master/ https://bitbucket.org/rileytestut/gba4ios/src/master/

lxgr 3y ago
That clause is not compatible with the GPL, to which the author is bound in this case (since he does not own the copyright for all of the emulator cores he's including).
- Retr0id 3y ago
  If the GBA4iOS author is infringing the GPL license by including 3rd-party GPLed code in a not-GPL-compatible codebase, does that make their 1st-party code any less proprietary? My non-lawyerly interpretation is that both parties seem in the wrong.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    > does that make their 1st-party code any less proprietary? I believe that is the case, yes. The GPL has a "sticky clause" that attempts to make all code deriving from/including GPL-ed code GPL-licensed itself, without requiring the original author to be the one that enforces this: > 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. I have no idea if this practically works in court, though.
  - boomlinde 3y ago
    "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." Emphasis mine. The author is giving permission to use their original code but doesn't re-license anyone else's code. They're explicitly offering their own code under a dual license.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

lxgr 3y ago

That clause is not compatible with the GPL, to which the author is bound in this case (since he does not own the copyright for all of the emulator cores he's including).

Retr0id 3y ago
If the GBA4iOS author is infringing the GPL license by including 3rd-party GPLed code in a not-GPL-compatible codebase, does that make their 1st-party code any less proprietary? My non-lawyerly interpretation is that both parties seem in the wrong.
- lxgr 3y ago
  > does that make their 1st-party code any less proprietary? I believe that is the case, yes. The GPL has a "sticky clause" that attempts to make all code deriving from/including GPL-ed code GPL-licensed itself, without requiring the original author to be the one that enforces this: > 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. I have no idea if this practically works in court, though.
- boomlinde 3y ago
  "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." Emphasis mine. The author is giving permission to use their original code but doesn't re-license anyone else's code. They're explicitly offering their own code under a dual license.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]