14 ms·

Last I looked (a few years ago) ios forbid open source apps on the store, has that changed?

by icefox 13y ago

embwbam 13y ago
Hmm. I haven't heard anything about that. How would they even know?
- lambada 13y ago
  It's specifically to do with GPL licensed things. The GPL (v2 anyway, unsure about the others), forbid placing any restrictions on the rights to modify and use the software. As running modified applications on iOS requires a Developer License from Apple for a fee (and associated additional Terms), some believe that the GPL is fundamentally incompatible with the Apple App Store. Any license that imposes a similar condition (other GPL variations etc) are also likely to be incompatible with the App Store. Disclaimer: IANAL.
  - sovande 13y ago
    Not quite. The main problem with GPL in the AppStore is that the GPL forbid additional terms and conditions to be added to the license, but Apple require that apps are distributed under their standard EULA or at least one that follows at minimum these terms and conditions, http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/appstore/dev/minterms/ http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/appstore...
    - lambada 13y ago
      Correct, is that not what I said? >forbid placing any restrictions on the rights to modify and use the software.
- nonchalance 13y ago
  A while ago there was controversy over the VLC for iOS app and it was taken down due to licensing concerns
  - porsupah 13y ago
    The VLC team undertook a license conversion, turning "libVLC and most modules" LGPL. Consequently, VLC for iOS returned on Sep 9 2013. http://www.videolan.org/vlc/releases/2.1.0.html http://www.videolan.org/vlc/releases/2.1.0.html
tjr 13y ago
I don't know about open source in general, but GPL'd software is in conflict with the Apple license. If you yourself are the copyright holder, then I (not being a lawyer) would imagine you would be free to license your software under both the GPL and Apple's iOS license, but you couldn't take someone else's GPL'd software and publish it on iOS, without their permission. Which is one of the points of the GPL, so no big surprise.
- embwbam 13y ago
  I went with MIT + a single condition saying no final work could compete directly with my app. I'm not very experienced with open source licensing. Any recommendations?
  - dec0dedab0de 13y ago
    I don't think that would actually count as open source, at least according to http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd
  - xj9 13y ago
    That's shared source, not open source. Anyway, I usually use BSD or WTFPL
    - embwbam 13y ago
      What difference does it make practically in this case? Should I switch it?
      - lucian1900 13y ago
        MIT vs BSD makes no practical difference. However, the license you have now is not actually MIT, but MIT+your extra restriction. That makes it not open source and a liability for anyone that would use it, since your extra restriction could be interpreted in any number of ways. One way to keep the option of legal offense against clones is with differently-licensed assets. MIT your code, but choose one of the non-commercial or share-alike Creative Commons licenses. There are lots of them and you're bound to find one that fits your purposes.
yaeger 13y ago
You must have not been looking too hard as that was never true. Apple has no problem with Open Source. It is just that a few Open Source Licenses have a problem with Apple. A small but important difference. Apple couldn't care less what open source license you use. But some licenses like the GPL forbid you from distributing your work in a place like the appstore.
- belorn 13y ago
  The license give users the right to copy, and to do modification to GPL software. It also says that users should be allowed to install said modified software on devices which the users has full ownership over. Apple has the opinion that they should still retain control after a device in sold, giving them practical ownership after sale. This method of corrupting property laws for leverage over other peoples property goes directly against what the author of a GPL software wants, and is such written into license. Apple with their appstore has thus a fundamental disagreement with the wishes of the author to GPLv3 licensed software. The author can give apple permission on this issue, allowing distribution on the appstore (if Apple accepted it), but that's a copyright concept. Authors can always give permission to someone else about their copyrighted work, but so long the author believes in property laws and peoples right to be in control of their bought devices, its unlikely they will give Apple that extra permission.

Last I looked (a few years ago) ios forbid open source apps on the store, has that changed?

by icefox 13y ago

Last I looked (a few years ago) ios forbid open source apps on the store, has that changed?

embwbam 13y ago

Hmm. I haven't heard anything about that. How would they even know?

lambada 13y ago
It's specifically to do with GPL licensed things. The GPL (v2 anyway, unsure about the others), forbid placing any restrictions on the rights to modify and use the software. As running modified applications on iOS requires a Developer License from Apple for a fee (and associated additional Terms), some believe that the GPL is fundamentally incompatible with the Apple App Store. Any license that imposes a similar condition (other GPL variations etc) are also likely to be incompatible with the App Store. Disclaimer: IANAL.
- sovande 13y ago
  Not quite. The main problem with GPL in the AppStore is that the GPL forbid additional terms and conditions to be added to the license, but Apple require that apps are distributed under their standard EULA or at least one that follows at minimum these terms and conditions, http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/appstore/dev/minterms/ http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/appstore...
  - lambada 13y ago
    Correct, is that not what I said? >forbid placing any restrictions on the rights to modify and use the software.
nonchalance 13y ago
A while ago there was controversy over the VLC for iOS app and it was taken down due to licensing concerns
- porsupah 13y ago
  The VLC team undertook a license conversion, turning "libVLC and most modules" LGPL. Consequently, VLC for iOS returned on Sep 9 2013. http://www.videolan.org/vlc/releases/2.1.0.html http://www.videolan.org/vlc/releases/2.1.0.html

tjr 13y ago

I don't know about open source in general, but GPL'd software is in conflict with the Apple license. If you yourself are the copyright holder, then I (not being a lawyer) would imagine you would be free to license your software under both the GPL and Apple's iOS license, but you couldn't take someone else's GPL'd software and publish it on iOS, without their permission. Which is one of the points of the GPL, so no big surprise.

embwbam 13y ago
I went with MIT + a single condition saying no final work could compete directly with my app. I'm not very experienced with open source licensing. Any recommendations?
- dec0dedab0de 13y ago
  I don't think that would actually count as open source, at least according to http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd
- xj9 13y ago
  That's shared source, not open source. Anyway, I usually use BSD or WTFPL
  - embwbam 13y ago
    What difference does it make practically in this case? Should I switch it?
    - lucian1900 13y ago
      MIT vs BSD makes no practical difference. However, the license you have now is not actually MIT, but MIT+your extra restriction. That makes it not open source and a liability for anyone that would use it, since your extra restriction could be interpreted in any number of ways. One way to keep the option of legal offense against clones is with differently-licensed assets. MIT your code, but choose one of the non-commercial or share-alike Creative Commons licenses. There are lots of them and you're bound to find one that fits your purposes.

yaeger 13y ago

You must have not been looking too hard as that was never true. Apple has no problem with Open Source. It is just that a few Open Source Licenses have a problem with Apple. A small but important difference. Apple couldn't care less what open source license you use. But some licenses like the GPL forbid you from distributing your work in a place like the appstore.

belorn 13y ago
The license give users the right to copy, and to do modification to GPL software. It also says that users should be allowed to install said modified software on devices which the users has full ownership over. Apple has the opinion that they should still retain control after a device in sold, giving them practical ownership after sale. This method of corrupting property laws for leverage over other peoples property goes directly against what the author of a GPL software wants, and is such written into license. Apple with their appstore has thus a fundamental disagreement with the wishes of the author to GPLv3 licensed software. The author can give apple permission on this issue, allowing distribution on the appstore (if Apple accepted it), but that's a copyright concept. Authors can always give permission to someone else about their copyrighted work, but so long the author believes in property laws and peoples right to be in control of their bought devices, its unlikely they will give Apple that extra permission.