6 ms·

Does anyone know if the Google Play Store agreement or the Amazon App Store agreement contain similar terms? I'd love to see Apple open things up a bit. My pe

by jewel 12y ago

Does anyone know if the Google Play Store agreement or the Amazon App Store agreement contain similar terms? I'd love to see Apple open things up a bit. My personal pet peeve is that it's nearly impossible to use LGPL libraries in iOS apps due to some of the terms.

glitcher 12y ago
I doubt this will actually motivate Apple to change in any way, but the EFF article also links to a petition: https://act.eff.org/action/apple-your-developer-agreement-tramples-on-free-speech-and-innovation https://act.eff.org/action/apple-your-developer-agreement-tr...
comex 12y ago
The Play Store agreement has a very similar clause which applies to all apps plus the store itself (haven't checked the Amazon one). The Android SDK agreement also has one, which may or may not be preempted by whatever parts of it are available under open source licenses (depending on your interpretation of "require"), but definitely applies to anything closed source (e.g. the new Java compilers, if I remember correctly). So basically the EFF is full of shit. > Security Features. You may not attempt to, nor assist, authorise or encourage others to circumvent, disable or defeat any of the security features or components, such as digital rights management software or encryption, that protect, obfuscate or otherwise restrict access to any Content or Google Play. - https://play.google.com/intl/en_us/about/play-terms.html https://play.google.com/intl/en_us/about/play-terms.html > 3.3 You may not use the SDK for any purpose not expressly permitted by this License Agreement. Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not: (a) copy (except for backup purposes), modify, adapt, redistribute, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or create derivative works of the SDK or any part of the SDK; ... - https://developer.android.com/sdk/terms.html https://developer.android.com/sdk/terms.html
- yincrash 12y ago
  It doesn't require that you put DRM in your app. The iOS one does (which is part of the build / submission process).
  - comex 12y ago
    I don't know enough about Android technically to tell whether this is true, but the blog post is complaining specifically about restrictions on reverse engineering the SDK. Another bullet point is about restrictions on jailbreaking; while this is certainly highly onerous and I don't think Google has an equivalent clause, it's worth noting that Google's ban on reverse engineering the Play Store and apps distributed by it (as opposed to the SDK itself) includes activities that, translated to Apple terms, are fairly important to jailbreaking. (In particular, many App Store apps refuse to run on jailbroken devices, and must be reverse engineered to identify how to bypass this check. I don't know what the situation is on Android, but I would be surprised if that clause wasn't rouinely ignored.)
    - MCRed 12y ago
      TLDR: Google is doing it too. Thank you for pointing it out.
    - yincrash 12y ago
      The main SDK is open source. It's built from the same tree as Android from the AOSP, and you can build it yourself right now, which makes reverse engineering it sort of moot. Things like billing APIs or maps or google's push notifications however are in closed binaries, which I believe is what the clause is protecting.
    - yincrash 12y ago
      Additionally, I know enough of the Android build process to know that yes, it is true that the Google Play Store does not require DRM. It's also easy to pull any app that doesn't have DRM off a phone and put it on a phone using the debug tool that google themselves release (ADB). `adb pull <app location>` plug in new phone `adb install <app file you just pulled.apk>`
  - MCRed 12y ago
    You can call it DRM but what it really is, is security. Apps are signed, preventing the running of unauthorized code, which keeps malware off the platform. If google really doesn't have this, then it's a shame, but it would explain why there's so much malware on android. EFF's position across this article is supporting malware, and preventing malware is the clear cause and reasons for all the things the EFF opposes.
- pwnna 12y ago
  What about people building their own SDKs from AOSP source? I know quite a few people that does this, which helps them with built-in app developments as you can get all the @hidden methods/properties.
on_and_off 12y ago
I read them quite some time ago (when I signed them) but I don't remember reading anything similar in the Play Store. Several of these terms don't even apply to Android (the platform is open so you can publish where you want and you don't have to use reverse engineering on an open source project). Also, I don't see why the EFF would have published their Android app if they thought the terms were unacceptable.
- jshevek 12y ago
  Exactly. EFF is making a well reasoned decision here that is consistent with their stated goals as an organization, and with the stances they take on other issues. Obviously, there are massive differences between Apple's policies and Google's policies, when taken as a whole. EFF might (speculation) see the Google Play store as a minor compromise of their values, while the apple app store is a MAJOR compromise. > Also, I don't see why the EFF would have published their Android app if they thought the terms were unacceptable. It seems that the dominant theory by the enraged applephiles is relates to some imaginary 'holy war' against their beloved, innocent apple.
dingaling 12y ago
The Amazon App Store rewraps your app with Amazon metrics and a DRM framework; even if you choose not to use DRM, the additional code is added and the app is re-signed using their keys ( with all the implications that entails ). The Amazon code is really invasive, I have been working on extricating a free app from it for some time and it is tedious work. There is an open Firefox bug about this: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=713777 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=713777 It also ensures that the app won't run on a device that doesn't have an active Amazon App Store account, even when you bought the app fair and square. If you're an open-source developer I'd suggest you stay well clear of Amazon.

by jewel 12y ago

glitcher 12y ago

I doubt this will actually motivate Apple to change in any way, but the EFF article also links to a petition: https://act.eff.org/action/apple-your-developer-agreement-tramples-on-free-speech-and-innovation https://act.eff.org/action/apple-your-developer-agreement-tr...

comex 12y ago

The Play Store agreement has a very similar clause which applies to all apps plus the store itself (haven't checked the Amazon one). The Android SDK agreement also has one, which may or may not be preempted by whatever parts of it are available under open source licenses (depending on your interpretation of "require"), but definitely applies to anything closed source (e.g. the new Java compilers, if I remember correctly). So basically the EFF is full of shit. > Security Features. You may not attempt to, nor assist, authorise or encourage others to circumvent, disable or defeat any of the security features or components, such as digital rights management software or encryption, that protect, obfuscate or otherwise restrict access to any Content or Google Play. - https://play.google.com/intl/en_us/about/play-terms.html https://play.google.com/intl/en_us/about/play-terms.html > 3.3 You may not use the SDK for any purpose not expressly permitted by this License Agreement. Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not: (a) copy (except for backup purposes), modify, adapt, redistribute, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or create derivative works of the SDK or any part of the SDK; ... - https://developer.android.com/sdk/terms.html https://developer.android.com/sdk/terms.html

yincrash 12y ago
It doesn't require that you put DRM in your app. The iOS one does (which is part of the build / submission process).
- comex 12y ago
  I don't know enough about Android technically to tell whether this is true, but the blog post is complaining specifically about restrictions on reverse engineering the SDK. Another bullet point is about restrictions on jailbreaking; while this is certainly highly onerous and I don't think Google has an equivalent clause, it's worth noting that Google's ban on reverse engineering the Play Store and apps distributed by it (as opposed to the SDK itself) includes activities that, translated to Apple terms, are fairly important to jailbreaking. (In particular, many App Store apps refuse to run on jailbroken devices, and must be reverse engineered to identify how to bypass this check. I don't know what the situation is on Android, but I would be surprised if that clause wasn't rouinely ignored.)
  - MCRed 12y ago
    TLDR: Google is doing it too. Thank you for pointing it out.
  - yincrash 12y ago
    The main SDK is open source. It's built from the same tree as Android from the AOSP, and you can build it yourself right now, which makes reverse engineering it sort of moot. Things like billing APIs or maps or google's push notifications however are in closed binaries, which I believe is what the clause is protecting.
  - yincrash 12y ago
    Additionally, I know enough of the Android build process to know that yes, it is true that the Google Play Store does not require DRM. It's also easy to pull any app that doesn't have DRM off a phone and put it on a phone using the debug tool that google themselves release (ADB). `adb pull <app location>` plug in new phone `adb install <app file you just pulled.apk>`
- MCRed 12y ago
  You can call it DRM but what it really is, is security. Apps are signed, preventing the running of unauthorized code, which keeps malware off the platform. If google really doesn't have this, then it's a shame, but it would explain why there's so much malware on android. EFF's position across this article is supporting malware, and preventing malware is the clear cause and reasons for all the things the EFF opposes.
pwnna 12y ago
What about people building their own SDKs from AOSP source? I know quite a few people that does this, which helps them with built-in app developments as you can get all the @hidden methods/properties.

on_and_off 12y ago

I read them quite some time ago (when I signed them) but I don't remember reading anything similar in the Play Store. Several of these terms don't even apply to Android (the platform is open so you can publish where you want and you don't have to use reverse engineering on an open source project). Also, I don't see why the EFF would have published their Android app if they thought the terms were unacceptable.

jshevek 12y ago
Exactly. EFF is making a well reasoned decision here that is consistent with their stated goals as an organization, and with the stances they take on other issues. Obviously, there are massive differences between Apple's policies and Google's policies, when taken as a whole. EFF might (speculation) see the Google Play store as a minor compromise of their values, while the apple app store is a MAJOR compromise. > Also, I don't see why the EFF would have published their Android app if they thought the terms were unacceptable. It seems that the dominant theory by the enraged applephiles is relates to some imaginary 'holy war' against their beloved, innocent apple.

dingaling 12y ago

The Amazon App Store rewraps your app with Amazon metrics and a DRM framework; even if you choose not to use DRM, the additional code is added and the app is re-signed using their keys ( with all the implications that entails ). The Amazon code is really invasive, I have been working on extricating a free app from it for some time and it is tedious work. There is an open Firefox bug about this: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=713777 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=713777 It also ensures that the app won't run on a device that doesn't have an active Amazon App Store account, even when you bought the app fair and square. If you're an open-source developer I'd suggest you stay well clear of Amazon.