4 ms·

Really? I would assume that the drm system they use would prevent the distribution of GPL apps; I mean that's why you can't distribute them on the Apple, Androi

Really? I would assume that the drm system they use would prevent the distribution of GPL apps; I mean that's why you can't distribute them on the Apple, Android or MS phone app stores.

jbk 14y ago
No. First, DRM are not necessarily against all FOSS licenses (see GPLv3 discussions). And then, there are a lot of FOSS applications on Android...
- batgaijin 14y ago
  http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13286803/gpl-and-android-digital-signature http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13286803/gpl-and-android-... http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/no-gpl-apps-for-apples-app-store/8046 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/no-gpl-apps-for-apples... I was talking about GPL specifically. Signing a binary is a modification that goes outside the realm of GPL.
lutusp 14y ago
> Really? I would assume that the drm system they use would prevent the distribution of GPL apps; I mean that's why you can't distribute them on the Apple, Android or MS phone app stores. You must be aware that this is false, yes? There are many FOSS/GPL apps in the Android distribution system. The existence of Digital Rights Management doesn't mean every app must be a potential lawsuit to qualify.
gizmo686 14y ago
GPLv3 does not forbid the presence of DRM. Section 3 of GPLv3 reads: "3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law. No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures. When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures." There is also a relevent piece of section 6, saying: "If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM)."

Really? I would assume that the drm system they use would prevent the distribution of GPL apps; I mean that's why you can't distribute them on the Apple, Android or MS phone app stores.

jbk 14y ago

No. First, DRM are not necessarily against all FOSS licenses (see GPLv3 discussions). And then, there are a lot of FOSS applications on Android...

batgaijin 14y ago
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13286803/gpl-and-android-digital-signature http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13286803/gpl-and-android-... http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/no-gpl-apps-for-apples-app-store/8046 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/no-gpl-apps-for-apples... I was talking about GPL specifically. Signing a binary is a modification that goes outside the realm of GPL.

lutusp 14y ago

> Really? I would assume that the drm system they use would prevent the distribution of GPL apps; I mean that's why you can't distribute them on the Apple, Android or MS phone app stores. You must be aware that this is false, yes? There are many FOSS/GPL apps in the Android distribution system. The existence of Digital Rights Management doesn't mean every app must be a potential lawsuit to qualify.

gizmo686 14y ago

GPLv3 does not forbid the presence of DRM. Section 3 of GPLv3 reads: "3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law. No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures. When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures." There is also a relevent piece of section 6, saying: "If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM)."