23 ms·
Unfortunately, licensing restrictions like that would make it incompatible with the GPL. One way around that would be dual licensing: allow people to use either
by eurleif 13y ago
Unfortunately, licensing restrictions like that would make it incompatible with the GPL. One way around that would be dual licensing: allow people to use either the special MIT-but-no-Apple license, or the GPL. Presumably Apple wouldn't touch the GPL option.
- lnanek2 13y agoWhy do you think the GPL matters? This is MIT licensed and the GPL is incompatible with the app store anyway, so no one can use it. See the removal of VLC.
- eurleif 13y ago>the GPL is incompatible with the app store anyway This project works on OS X, not just iOS.
- coldtea 13y ago"This is MIT licensed"
- eurleif 13y agoRight, and the MIT license is GPL compatible, so people can incorporate this project into GPL projects. But they're considering adding anti-Apple restrictions to their license, which would make it GPL incompatible.
- coldtea 13y agoSo? Why should the developers care about GPL projects?
- streptomycin 13y agoThe MIT license is typically used by people who want their code to be broadly used.
- kennywinker 13y agoThe issue is with the App Store. Apple can't ban you from using a "private" selector on the Mac, but they can ban you from using a "private" selector on the Mac App Store.
- eurleif 13y agoRight, but presumably they want to have one library that can be used both in projects built for the app store and in projects not built for the app store.
- kennywinker 13y agoHow about a license that was "MIT, unless you're Apple in which case it's GPL"? Wouldn't that be compatible with the GPL? You would be effectively barring Apple from using it, as they won't use GPL code inside `PhotoLibraryServices.framework`.
- eurleif 13y agoIANAL, but I don't think that would be GPL compatible. You're only explicitly allowing Apple to use it under the GPL, not other parties. And even though "unless you're Apple in which case it's the GPL" involves the GPL, it's still a licensing restriction which is not included in the GPL.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- teacup50 13y agoWho cares? The GPL's compatibility clauses are a pain for everyone, and in return the GPL provides nothing to anyone not already using it. Maybe we should intentionally poison-pill our open source licenses to be GPLv3-incompatible; after all, the GPL is designed to actively leverage network effects to establish monopoly control over how the rest of us share code. Responding with the same tactics seems fair.
- AlexMax 13y ago> Responding with the same tactics seems fair. So you are going to combat the network effects that would establish monopoly control over how people share code by...trying to establish monopoly control over how people share code? Doesn't that seem a wee bit hypocritical to you?
- teacup50 13y agoSeeing as only people who use the GPL would be affected in this hypothetical, no.
- eurleif 13y agoAnd the GPL only affects people who want to write proprietary software. How is the GPL somehow more evil than proprietary software in your worldview?
- teacup50 13y ago> And the GPL only affects people who want to write proprietary software. A GPL-incompatible license isn't proprietary. > How is the GPL somehow more evil than proprietary software in your worldview? In the same way that communism is more evil than capitalism.