iPhone SDK and Free Software Don't Match 304
kookjr writes "Are you planning to develop software for the iPhone? If you want to develop Free Software, Linux.com (Shares corp overlord w/ Slashdot) has a good review of the conflicts between Apple's Registered iPhone Developer Agreement and licenses like the GPL. This is important for people who may not read all the agreements they click Agree to."
Why is it still a case where (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems only logical that this should fall in the 'system requirements' type category of the install documentation...
Sure, when you start your car there is no beeping alarm and a warning sign to use ONLY unleaded gas, but then they go to extra efforts to warn you at the gas fill spot, and make the neck of the gas fill tube so that only unleaded fuel and siphon hoses will fit.
This license thing is like letting you believe you can pour diesel fuel right on in the tank, no worries.
I like car analogies
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are thousands of different licenses.
Fuel compatibility is based on verifiable engineering principles.
License compatibility is based on legal opinion.
Re:Why is it still a case where (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but it met the Slashdot requirement of being a car analogy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What? No, I'm not missing that at all. The OP asked why companies aren't clearly stating what licenses are compatible. The responder gave an answer amounting to saying that would be hard for the company. I explained why, if the company wanted to, it would be quite easy to do a good enough job to be useful (even if less than perfect). Given that they aren't doing it, and that it would be easy, one must conclude that there is some other reason -- like them not caring about other licenses than their own.
Re:Why is it still a case where (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why is it still a case where (Score:5, Interesting)
Old cars used lead in fuel to lubricate engine parts. Lead is toxic. In addition to removing lead, newer cars added catalytic converters to burn off tailpipe toxins. If you run leaded gas through them, it contaminates the catalysts.
So to prevent people who didn't know better from thinking they could run "regular" gas through their newer cars without destroying a ~$300 part and dumping out more pollution, they make it difficult to do so with a smaller filler hose and port.
That shares little in common with the idea of using GPL software in the iPhone. First of all, there's no damage: anyone can adapt FOSS libraries or develop new code under a free license and use this to deliver iPhone programs. Their open source code can be distributed for others to adapt; the only difference is that in order for someone to actually deploy an adapted version of that code, that new developer would need to be in the iPhone dev program so they could sign and distribute it.
Apple uses both GPL and BSD licensed software on the iPhone, and makes their source available from its website. Why can't other software developers do the same?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but even the GPL doesn't force developers to guarantee that their code will never be used on a secured platform that requires code signing. iPhone development offers no barriers to open source ideologies. It's only the official AppStore distribution of completed software that requires some approval from Apple. It seems pretty clear that there will always be some software that requires modifying the iPhone's firmware to distribute non-signed, unofficial software, so even that is hardly relevant.
What's the controversy here? Seems to be much grasping at straws by the ignorant diggtard crowd that likes to bewail the "Apple monopoly." Of course, the problem is that Apple competes against lots of other products in the market. There are lots of MP3 players, media software, and smartphones; there are no commercial PC operating systems to choose from, and even the free volunteer options are hard to find available on a new PC that doesn't already include a Windows license. That's the difference between the Windows monopoly and the competition of iTunes, the iPod, and the iPhone.
iPhone 2.0 SDK: How Signing Certificates Work [roughlydrafted.com]
Apple haters be damned! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Apple haters be damned! (Score:4, Funny)
Uh, 'scuse me while iRead this iSummons from Apple's iLawyer. Who isn't so iCool or iPopular. But nothing's as iCool as iScream!
Did iMention that iGot an iOperation [slashdot.org] last week?
iKid, iKid! ok iGo now.
iPhone delivers on the GPL's purpose for being (Score:3, Insightful)
I've seen a lot of tech demos. I've seen alot of prototypes. And yet, the iPhone for all of its closed terrible-ness is the most advanced piece of technology I've ever seen- and it gets better... I own one. Its in my hand. I use it every day. This isn't something we drool over and fantasize about owning some day, this is extremely attainable.
The point is that while I am a FSF and EFF supporter, GPL still doesn't deliver with jaw-dropping results. Apple does. The open movement was created largely in respons
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
.Instead look at changing GPL to accommodate a company that is (in its own way) delivering on the goals that FSF was created to accomplish.
What? That would be a very, very sad day. I had to read that statement 3 times. Forgive me if I misunderstand you but I get the feeling that you are suggesting that the GPL bends to support the activities of Apple? Again, a very, very sad day.
I have an iPhone, I have had one for a couple of months now and have been using it everyday. It's not bad. There are some very nice things about it and there are some very idiotic things about it. The one thing that I constantly complain about however is the rece
Re:Apple haters be damned! (Score:5, Funny)
Sarcasm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Apple haters be damned! (Score:4, Informative)
FYI - all of UNIX is now there.
Though my favorite quote is
Sold. Get it? Sold.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's probably the most widely-used UNIX too, because the ones exceeding it that aren't typically "sold" (e.g. Linux) also aren't officially certified to be UNIX®.
Why is this a surprise? (Score:3, Insightful)
People should really read what they agree to but of course they don't most of the time. Of course, the
Re:Why is this a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
And if the ability of
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why is this a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
It might be considered a surprise considering you can release your software for free (as in beer). But you can't really release the source for free (as in speech) under a GPL.
If want to release "free" software, it's hard to believe you have to do so restrictively.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why is this a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing stopping me from releasing it under the GPL with an exception addendum [wikipedia.org] to account for the iPhone code signing requirements. So if you modify my app and distribute it, you still have to comply with the GPL except for distributing a code signing key to make it work on real hardware.
So far, anyway, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So far, anyway, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
However, the majority of iPhone developers are going to be expending their efforts to get paid. Distributing jailbreak software will be as profitable as trying to sell Palm or WinCE software: 99% will be used without payment, and those who do pay will expect expensive support. Good luck with that kind of business plan.
Developers who join up with the AppStore will be able to sell their work to large, paying audiences with little piracy los
Gratis or libre? (Score:3, Informative)
There is nothing preventing free software to be distrubuted from the iPhone App Store. I'm working on one to release, probably for free. The barriers are for Open Source Software, which just happens to usually be free.
Except the term free software [wikipedia.org] is commonly used as a synonym for open source software [wikipedia.org] (or vice versa). Are you thinking of freeware [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A new low (Score:5, Funny)
Wow,
A pointy hat (Score:3, Funny)
Leave Salsadot alone! (Score:5, Funny)
Mmmmm, "Dancing for Nerds. Spicy food you pay for twice."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You misspelled slashdot.org.
Including you, 33 miscreants have misspelled it today!
A cricket graph [asimov.net] of the number of people who have misspelled slashdot.org over time.
Combined FUD, Maby-FUD and Not-FUD... (Score:4, Informative)
If you ask Apple, thats a feature.
If you ask the Free Software Foundation, thats a feature.
The Maby FUD: Is code which uses the iPhone APIs confidential information under the NDA? No answer yet.
The Total FUD: It only affects SOME Free liscences. Even if the APIs are confidential, this does NOT stop BSD code, but only viral liscences like GPL.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
GPLv2 MAY BE incompatible... (Score:5, Informative)
Also, apple's method of distribution MAY BE GPLv2 incompatible, because Apple might not want to also be responsible for distributing the source code and some GPLv2 authors may not like derivitive works where a different party distributes the source code compared to the binary (because the developer could always host the code if its not confidential), and the GPLv2 as written says it is the binary distributer's responsibility to distribute the source code.
We don't know yet, but if the distribution is not GPLv2 friendly:
If you ask the Free Software Foundation, that would be a feature.
If you ask Apple, that would be a feature.
Re: (Score:2)
If you ask Apple, that would be a feature.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GPLv2 MAY BE incompatible... (Score:5, Informative)
The normal ADC NDA says the same thing, and that has never prevented anyone from distributing application source code. (One can argue that the third-party books which describe the API cover this -- but books always lag behind, and I've never seen anyone worried that they'll be sued by Apple for distributing their application source code before any third-party books describing the APIs they're using are out.)
Of course, I'm neither a lawyer nor Apple (and certainly not an Apple lawyer), so I can't speak definitively... but common sense seems to say this is a red herring.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mod parent up. If the iPhone SDK has the same clause as the ADC has had for awhile, this is very much a "red herring."
Re: (Score:2)
Apple doesn't have to distribute the source code for you though... couldn't you provide it on your own web site and just provide a link with the binary?
Obviously the question of the API being confidential would be an issue for GPL v2 but I don't think the code distribution issue is a real one. Plenty of people seem to provide binaries with just a link to the source code if you want it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By your interpretation changing a package from
Re:Combined FUD, Maby-FUD and Not-FUD... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Combined FUD, Maby-FUD and Not-FUD... (Score:4, Informative)
Since registering as a developer for the SDK is $0.00, and a registered devolper with a dev key is $100, AND is needed if you want to modify the code, Big Frakin Deal: you can only distribute the code to people who are able to use it, as the jailbreak dev-kits don't use the same APIs (and if they did, then you can distribute to your hearts content because its clearly no longer confidential information).
Re:Combined FUD, Maby-FUD and Not-FUD... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, ok. I think I've just solved the prostitution problem for the US using the same approach: you can pay women for sex, but only if the woman in question is your wife. Ta-da!
Re: (Score:2)
Why? You don't need to publish the source code to be in compliance with the BSD license. All you need to do is credit the authors. Heck, Windows incorporates (or used to) a BSD licensed TCP/IP stack. The fact that you don't need to publish the code is the main difference between the GPL and BSD licenses.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When they are talking about you can't alter it and then use it, their talking about how the software isn't free of restriction. They are not talking about its price.
Re: (Score:2)
Use GPLv2, and be happy. IMHO, the anti-tivo rantings and virtues of GPLv3 are wildly overplayed.
Also, you should get your own legal advice concerning this topic. FSF's Smith may have an ax to grind.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can see this when he talks about GLPv2 -- when talking about the code-signing requirement, he acknowledges that it wouldn't hinder GLPv2, but says that still the code wouldn't be "free software".
My gut reaction is to agree that the NDA thing has a FUD feel to it,
Apple's license is viral, not the GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
The GPL quite clearly says that the OS can be under whatever license it wants to be. GPL'ed software runs on SunOS, Solaris, Windows, AIX, Symbian, and lots of other systems with weird licenses. GPL software does not infect software that isn't derived from it in some way.
The problem here is that Apple is trying to be viral and infect software that they did not develop. The GPLv3 just says that it won't allow itself to be infected by viral corporate licenses.
I've owned about a dozen Macs over the years. I'm so pissed of about Apple's recent bullshit that I'm not going to buy another Apple product until they change or hell freezes over.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Their reasoning is pretty paranoid, not to mention the way the article is written it's very misleading. The NDA says you can't release information that is not available elsewhere. The SDK documentation is available to non-$99 paying developers (like me) so the information is available without signing the NDA.
Talking about the registered developer program and then switching gears to talk about the NDA is a nice little bit of circumstantial association.
Why should *everything* be GPL compatible? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Hardware on the other hand, not so much. What's needed to develop on hardware should be license agnostic.
Re:Why should *everything* be GPL compatible? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are other hardware manufacturers. So if you don't like the terms required to support the iPhone, then help out the GPL compatible alternatives instead (eg. Nokia N810)..
Re:Why should *everything* be GPL compatible? (Score:5, Informative)
A great amount of effort went into writing GPLv3 in such a way that it would be compatible with Apache License v2.0 and other Free licenses.
Re:Why should *everything* be GPL compatible? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right that the GPL doesn't strive for great compatibility with other license. It strives to be the most free. Sometimes that causes problems with proprietary systems. It's not the GPLs fault that it can't be compatible with licenses that remove your freedoms.
Re:Why should *everything* be GPL compatible? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why should *everything* be GPL compatible? (Score:5, Insightful)
[The GPL] strives to be the most free.
Not quite. It strives to stay free. Most people consider BSD-licensed code to be more free than GPL-licensed code, simply because there are fewer restrictions.
I'm not commenting on whether "being more free" or "staying free" is "better" (whatever that might mean in this context), simply that there's a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's pretty clear that we are more free with the 13th amendment than without, and similarly that code is more free with the GPL than without.
Re:Why should *everything* be GPL compatible? (Score:4, Insightful)
The 13th amendment DOES make you less free in some aspects. You are not free to own slaves. Less freedom. That's the end of it. Now, it makes any potential slave much, MUCH more free in some other aspects (and I get that in this analogy, everybody is a slave -- but also in this analogy the slaves can have slaves, so it still holds), and it is overall a good thing, but "good" and "free" are not synonyms. Just because the 13th amendment is absolutely a good thing doesn't mean that it isn't a restriction of your freedoms.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Slavery is bad, no argument, but the removal of the possibility of owning slaves is indeed a restriction on your freedom. Conflating the freedom of the slave with the freedom of owning a slave, and mixing the abhorrent nature of slavery itself into the argument is all just to try and obscure the fact that the GPL *does* remove more rights than (say) the BSD licence.
Now the GPL has high motives; I've released a fair amount of software under GPL (v2, I'd neve
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only restrictions on GPL code is that you can't impose restrictions on anyone else. Can you seriously argue that you're less free because you cannot remove the freedoms of others?
I most certainly can argue that. As an example, BSD-licensed code has fewer restrictions than GPL: I could take some BSD-licensed code and use it in my own commercial application. I don't need to release my application under any particular license, I simply need to honour the terms of the BSD license, which (broadly) boils
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
O Really? Don't get me wrong, because I prefer the GPL but I understand what the terms are.
Public Domain is the most free. Absolutely no restriction on how or what you have to distribute and no restriction on price. The users are free to manipulate the source code as they see fit. Since it gives the developers the most freedom, it gives the users no "freedom" when it comes to derived works. The users can only get access to the original source and not necessarily from the aut
Re:Why should *everything* be GPL compatible? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They may have done so. They almost certainly aren't compatible with the much less popular GPLv3, but I don't think many people are losing sleep over that one. Most folks use GPLv2, which they could definitely stay compatible with.
The thing isn't even being released for two months, so it's all just speculation at this point.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why can't we license software we write anyway we choose?
If I've written a software which, by default, I already own the copyright to, why can't I choose which license to release it under? You might be using other software under a different license to support your own. But having that 3rd party software restrict which license you can choose seems absolutely ridiculous and unnecessary. Please, someone enlighten me why this happens
Re: (Score:2)
But for most projects where developed by a small team the GPL is just a Polical Statement not anything useful. The GPL is a very strict licence for the developers, this is the reason why companies are not GPL friendly, not because they
Open hardware helped, not hurt, IBM (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the truth is a bit more complicated than that. IBM's opening up of the PC caused the PC market to expand overall, and IBM clearly benefited from the expansion of PCs. However, IBM made some big missteps along the way that caused its own offerings to gradually lose market share.
1) IBM was beaten to the punch by Compaq on the 386. That's a big ouch. IBM PC A
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong license... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you misspelled "BSD" or "MIT"...
Re: (Score:2)
And you assumed that I was talking about people who cared about monetizing the development of a software product. That was addressed in my second paragraph.
Hell, I think Windows still has some BSD code in it.
Re: (Score:2)
And you assumed that I was talking about people who cared about monetizing the development of a software product. That was addressed in my second paragraph.
Or maybe he assumed when you said "use this however you like" you actually meant "use this however you like, as constrained by the GPL license." There's no argument--BSD license has fewer restrictions than GPLv2/GPLv3/LPGL/etc. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is another question.
Hell, I think Windows still has some BSD code in it.
I think not since 2k/xp--or possibly NT4 (I think you're talking about the TCP/IP stack)--but I don't know for sure.
Does this conflict with GPL 2 or just GPL3? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Slsadot? (Score:2, Funny)
Would you like some chips with that?
Re: (Score:2)
Not reading the agreements you "click to..." (Score:2)
Also this isn't about free software, it's about GPLv3 software. There are many license agreements for open source... there's BSD, there's GPLv2, there's GPLv3, there's the Apple's agreement... they all have different views of what things mean. GPLv3 is the most "preachy" in that it's as much religion and Stallman dogma as it is an agreement, and not everyone who is in bu
Code Signing (Score:4, Insightful)
- Code signing - this conflicts with GPLv3's "anti-Tivoization" clause. As others posted, both sides will see this as a feature, not a bug.
- It's not "free". This is true; much as you cannot download the Tivo source code and have it compile and work on your Tivo, you cannot just download available source code and run it on your iPhone. This goes back to the signing issues above.
- NDA provisions. I'm willing to bet this is purely during the beta period. All of Apple's other tools, documentation, etc are freely available, and I expect this will continue once it is released. After all, signing up for this program gives access to beta software (the iPhone firmware 2.0), and Apple similarly restricts access to OS X and other beta software. Once it's final, these restrictions are lifted.
Ultimately, this all boils down to code signing and what you think of it. The problems presented by this are fairly specific to GPLv3; anyone is free to distribute their code under (for example) the MIT/BSD license, or even GPLv2.As for GPLv3 it's far from widespread, and with prominent projects such as the Linux kernel avoiding it, I'm not sure how much traction it will gain over GPLv2. Much like Windows Vista has to compete with XP, GPLv3 has to compete with GPLv2.
No SimCity/Micropolis for iPhone (Score:5, Insightful)
I keep getting asked if I'll port SimCity (Micropolis) [google.com] to the iPhone.
Now I know the answer: NO! Because it's licensed under GPL 3 [google.com].
It's a lot easier to port software to the Windows CE on the PocketPC, anyway. And then I can give it away for free, instead of charging for it and forking over money to Apple.
-Don
Then no cell phone is compatible. (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) You must have your application signed before it will run on any cell phone,
(2) Your application must be delivered via the Apple iTunes store, and
(3) Your usage of the beta version of Apple's development kit subjects you to an NDA.
Well, the NDA part of the beta program struck me as a little odd, as it takes about no effort for any idiot to sign up and download the SDK for free--however, this seems to be a standard tactic by Apple for all its beta SDKs. The NDA will be gone, however, by the time the SDK is out of beta--so the whole "you must sign an NDA and that is incompatible with the GPL" thing will be gone by summer.
So what is left is the fact that you have to sign your application before it will run on the iPhone.
As someone who has written cell phone software before, I can tell you that Symbian and Windows Mobile also require application signing before allowing your programs to run on their platforms. It's very common in the cell phone industry to use certificate signing--and at $99/year, Apple is the cheapest to obtain a signing key. Further, from the sounds of it, by the time the SDK goes out of beta, anyone with $99 can get a signing key and sign as many apps as he wishes. (By contrast, for Windows Mobile you pay VeriSign $350 for 10 signing events [verisign.com], meaning you can only sign 10 applications or different versions of the same application. (Actually a signing event means you sign one executable.) Symbian is even more of a pain in the neck. [verisign.com] And let's not talk about Android until real Android-based phones start showing up on the market and we learn what sort of package signing requirements the cell phone manufacturers impose on Android applications.
While I appreciate the need for authors to fill column space in order to get paid, it seems to be a little early to start complaining about GPL incompatibility and pointing the fingers solely at Apple because you're too lazy to compare and contrast with the other mobile operating systems out there.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Then no cell phone is compatible. (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, please. You hear this excuse from Apple apologists every time this issue comes up. Of all the programs on my Nokia N70, only the stuff from Nokia, Opera and Adobe is signed. Gmail app is not signed. None of the games are signed. They all installed and run fine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that other vendors are even worse than Apple in this respect does not make Apple's attitude right!
True, but neither does it make it wrong. You have to consider the ramifications.
They may say that code signing is there to protect me and to make sure that my phone does not crash because of a badly-made application, but I would rather be given the choice.
App signing is to protect users, but not necessarily you in particular. Apple is concerned about the average user, not the modder.
I mean, all they have to do is refuse technical support on any iPhone with unsigned software installed onto it and provide a reasonable way to restore any iPhone to its initial state in case something I install turns out to make the handset misbehave.
You're assuming that is the only cost to Apple and that the ability to do this will not be a problem for normal users. So here's the situation from Apple's perspective. They want iPhones to be stable and resistant to malware. A whitelist is an extreme way to do this, but not necessarily unnee
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand your point, but I somewhat doubt that paying a fee is going to improve the quality of the software written for the iPhone. A lousy application won't be any better for being signed.
But it does pave the way for Apple to blackbox test it, for Apple or others to view the code or certify it, and most importantly for the source of software to be confirmed. I seriously doubt there will be much malware on the iPhone and for a change it may well be tied to a person who can be thrown in jail or sued by users.
I do not know all the SDK terms, but I take it that Apple does not necessarily get to see the code--and if they did, they would certainly lack the resources to audit every submitted piece of software--, so the only way to really protect their users is a very carefully designed API and execution subsystem.
A quick smell test is all that is needed to identify most malware today. It is certainly enough to identify a worm, which is one of the real issues. Basically, no drive by installatio
Simple Fix... (Score:2)
Instead write your code for an OSS phone or/and port it to Windows Mobile, there are far more Windows Mobile phones than iPhones, so you even get a bigger market.
In addition to more features, without restrictions, as you can write ANYTHING for the other platforms with no Big Brother approval from Nokia, Microsoft, etc.
Other cellphone companies and Microsoft made ONE mistake with their Mobile OSes, they didn't market the media feat
Re: (Score:2)
4th Quarter 2007 and the iPhone was in 3rd place in the US market behind Nokia and RIM. So yes you are right that its currently a larger market, but you'd be better off writing for Symbian or RIM to get an even bigger market and writing in Java to get the biggest market of all.
Other cellphone companies and Microsoft made ONE mistake with their Mobi
FSF Doesn't Get To Define Free Software (Score:4, Insightful)
More accurately it would not meet the FSF's definition of free software. I would call freely released source code that I could load into the iphone simulator (or with $99 an iphone itself) free software. But whether or not you agree with my usage of the term isn't the point. 'Free software' is a term like 'free country.' It's part of the language and no one entity can dictate it's meaning just because it thinks that is what the term should mean.
To be clear I have no dispute with the FSF. Just as various activist groups might offer their own definitions of free countries that differ so too is it reasonable for the FSF to offer their own definition of free software and to try to convince us it is the correct one. However, journalistic pieces like the one at linux.com shouldn't assume that the FSF can define by fiat what words in our language mean. Instead they should tell us that this would not qualify as free software under the FSF definition.
Nokia N810 (Score:2)
There's an alternative to the iPod Touch, anyway: the Nokia N810 Internet Tablet [nokiausa.com]. It's about the same size as the Touch but has a slide-out mini keyboard. It runs a pared-down Linux called Maemo. I just got one of these instead of a Touch because I wanted the keyboard, and I wanted a truly open platform (and I didn't want it to be a phone; it isn't).
Capsule review: the hardware design is brilliant. The software, though, is still rather rough. I'd love it if some of these people who are so eager to wr
Need to go through what Apple provide (Score:2)
time for some good hackers to start searching for giveaway strings in the code...
GPLv3 not really a problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Actual GPLv3 License says:
IANAL, but it looks to me like the only person who would be restricted from distributing GPLv3 code for the iPhone would be Apple, and even they could do so safely as long as they don't bundle it into the same transaction in which you buy the iPhone itself. You or I ought to be able to just provide a link to the source code in our app, or otherwise embed the source code in a readable fashion, and be safe from that clause while still distributing our app through iTunes.
So where's the problem Mr Smith?
FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The submitter spelled the name of the site wrong. The Slashdot editor didn't catch the mistake.
How is pointing that out Off-Topic? At the very least, it should be Funny or Over-rated (since spelling corrections usually fall into one of these two camps.
Tag article: slsahdot, and continue with the relevant conversation. :)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.tracfone.com/ [tracfone.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Without knowing your provider it's hard to say but there is the Verizon Wireless CDM 8905 [verizonwireless.com] which is pretty bare bones in comparison with most of today's offerings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)