FSF Asks Apple To Comply With the GPL For Clone of GNU Go 482
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The Free Software Foundation has discovered that an application currently distributed in Apple's App Store is a port of GNU Go. This makes it a GPL violation, because Apple controls distribution of all such programs through the iTunes Store Terms of Service, which is incompatible with section 6 of the GPLv2. It's an unusual enforcement action, though, because they don't want Apple to just make the app disappear, they want Apple to grant its users the full freedoms offered by the GPL. Accordingly, they haven't sued or sent any legal threats and are instead in talks with Apple about how they can offer their users the GPLed software legally, which is difficult because it's not possible to grant users all the freedoms they're entitled to and still comply with Apple's restrictive licensing terms."
Fat Chance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fat Chance (Score:5, Funny)
The more they tighten their grip, the more open source software will slip through their fingers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's the problem with FOSS. It seems to slip through most everybody's fingers.....
Re:Fat Chance (Score:4, Informative)
Really? Seems a lot of people that I've switched to Open Office are VERY happy that they don't have to pay $300 for an office suite to type up reports, especially since the interface is more familiar to them than the Office 2003 and later interfaces.
Re:Fat Chance (Score:4, Informative)
Though you can buy that for $150 (for the home and student edition) you can't use it for commercial or business purposes. That means it is intended to be used for writing letters and doing school papers. Any use of it for commercial purposes violates the license. Since the license is so restrictive why not just use the free program that supports international standards?
Your inability or unwillingness to learn to use Open Office aside, no pragmatic reasons exist for not using it for everything, even that which you state can't be achieved.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think you're right about that in this case. I love the doctrine of first sale, but this isn't covered. To buy the academic edition (student, teacher, whatever it's called nowadays) you have to certify that you're a student and agree to a non-transferable license for non-commercial use only. Or at least you did when I bought it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Open Office did not have the TOC, TOF, page numbering, section break, formatting options that worked well enough for those reports.
I have no idea what TOF is, but Open Office has perfectly good options for all of the other things. I refuse to believe that it wasn't up to scratch. Rather, I think that you have developed habits with MSO which you refuse to break or recognise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fat Chance (Score:5, Funny)
Bertrand Serlet: "Steve, we've analyzed their attack, and there is a weakness. Shall I have your shuttle and our crack legal team standing by?" Steve Jobs: "Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances."
Re:Fat Chance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fat Chance (Score:4, Informative)
RTFL. The distributor is the one responsible for complying with the GPL. Or rather, the entity that conveys the binary is responsible, ie Apple.
Apple is not like Best Buy (Score:3, Informative)
Probably not since, given the doctrine of first sale, Best Buy doesn't need a copyright license to distribute a physical copy they have purchased in good faith from a vendor, so they don't need the GPL's permission to sell their copy.
Apple, OTOH, is transmitting a new digital copy to each purchaser, which does require either a legal privilege that trumps copyright (e.g., fair use, which pretty clearly doesn't apply
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. You seem to be confused. There is no analogy being used. I'm not saying what Apple is doing is analogous to copying, I'm saying it is copying, and that copying is, under copyright law, an exclusive right under copyright (unlike distributing existing copies) and, therefore, unlike distributing existing copies does require a copyright license or an exception to copyright if you aren't the copyright owner.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hey, great idea, I wonder how nobody thought of that before!
Except they have. Section 5 of the GPL v2 explicitly notes that, besides the license, "nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program".
If the GPL is null and void, Apple can't legally distribute the program.
Re:Fat Chance (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, not exactly. The GPL is a distribution license. Without it, you may not copy the work at all, as per copyright law. That means that everyone in an electronic distribution chain must comply with the GPL, because each one is making a copy. Apple is making a copy of a copyrighted work every time that someone downloads something from the store.
There is almost certainly a clause in the developer agreement saying that you will indemnify Apple against legal costs caused by distributing your app, but this is where it gets interesting. If Apple has distributed something derived from GPL'd code, without complying with the terms of the GPL, then they are liable for copyright infringement (for profit, potential large statutory fine). They could then recoup this cost by suing the developer, but I imagine that the developer probably can't afford the fine and that the amount of bad press it would generate for Apple in the developer community would make it not worth their while.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If Apple has distributed something derived from GPL'd code, without complying with the terms of the GPL, then they are liable for copyright infringement
Keep in mind that anyone may opt out of the GPL, and in such case standard copyright laws apply. But only the copyright owners (those listed in AUTHORS) have legal standing to sue over copyright infringement. I doubt Apple would want to go down that route, because it opens them up to being sued, and they probably won't sue in return.
So let's say they opt-in to the GPL. Anyone who purchases the software can then require the source code of the derivative software from Apple, and Apple would then require it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the amount of bad press it would generate for Apple in the developer community would make it not worth their while.
Why would that generate bad press? Apple was duped by an unscrupulous developer. A lawsuit is exactly what he deserves.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If Apple has distributed something derived from GPL'd code, without complying with the terms of the GPL, then they are liable for copyright infringement (for profit, potential large statutory fine).
Actually, you can't claim damages beyond what you can prove you lost as a result of copyright infringement unless you notify the offending party first and they do not stop the copying. Since Apple did, no large fines unless there are some weird new laws I haven't heard about.
Re:Fat Chance (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah... The problem is...the store's just as obligated as the developer. They distributed it. The GPL is a derivative works and publication/distribution license on whatever is protected by it.
By selling the app, they're in a pickle. Much like Verizon was with the Actiontec routers with BusyBox in them that was just as non-compliant.
Re:Fat Chance (Score:5, Insightful)
This sorta gotcha is why GPL developers prefer the GPL.
Re:Fat Chance (Score:5, Insightful)
This sorta gotcha is why GPL developers prefer the GPL.
It is also why Apple developers prefer the BSD license [apple.com] - they can charge for a cut-and-paste of something that is free/free.
It is ironic how Berkeley students and faculty are now paying Apple to use code their institution gave to the world for free - and only because they made it too free.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is ironic how Berkeley students and faculty are now paying Apple to use code their institution gave to the world for free - and only because they made it too free.
Its not 'ironic' at all, and its certainly not 'too free' - Berkley students can get 'their' code from thousands of other sources, but what they cannot get is the value-add package that the Apple distribution provides. They havent lost anything, 'their' code is still available to them (and even Apple will supply it - you can download the Darwin sources).
Re:Fat Chance (Score:4, Insightful)
This says it all:
bukkit:~ bunky$ curl -s http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt [gnu.org] |wc -l
339
bukkit:~ bunky$ cat new_bsd_license.txt |wc -l
8
The consequences, I'm afraid, of writing a legal document, if you want it to accomplish anything at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This sort of “gotcha” crap is the reason I vastly prefer using BSD licensed software.
Regardless of whether you prefer the GPL or the BSD license, this is hardly a "gotcha." Selling GPL software without providing the source code is a pretty blatant violation of the exact purpose of the GPL, not some minor violation of an obscure clause.
Re:Fat Chance (Score:5, Informative)
Apple will pull the app from the store LONG before they allow actual open software to slip through their stranglehold on content.
My understanding is that to comply, Apple would just have to remove the clause that says if you create an app with their SDK you can't distribute that same version elsewhere, as that is what conflicts with the GPL. So all they'd have to do is add an exception for GPL apps and it would be of no real detriment to Apple. They probably will not, but they certainly could.
You wouldn't know it from the summary, but mostly, this is an issue with some people taking a GPL app and violating the license and in the process authorizing Apple to redistribute and violate the license as well in the process. It's really no different from someone submitting a closed source app they don't have license to to Apple's app store.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless I'm missing something that's probably going to be more of an issue.
Re:Fat Chance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple would just have to remove the clause that says if you create an app with their SDK you can't distribute that same version elsewhere
I don't see this clause anywhere in the developer agreement. It does say that you can't redistribute the SDK and that you can't distribute the application once you have contracted with Apple to distribute the application but nothing is ever said of the source code itself. It seems to me that you could freely distribute the source code under the developer agreement, you just couldn't distribute the binaries other than on Apple's App store.
I believe the problem with section 6 of the GPL v2 [gnu.org] is that once you ge
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's a good point. I was assuming it was a GPLv2 program but a little research shows it is GPLv3, at least right now.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple will pull the app from the store LONG before they allow actual open software to slip through their stranglehold on content.
If you think Apple is doing any of this on principle. Since they're implementing iPhone as the literal textbook example from The Innovator's Solution [amazon.com], they'd also be close to opening the iPhone since Android is about to walk past them (the book shows that staying proprietary until the product is commoditized leads to the maximum profits).
The timing might not be quite right, but
what?! no way. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:what?! no way. (Score:5, Insightful)
What a software license breach and someone doesn't threaten with lawsuits and horse whippings?!
The FSF almost invariably tries to contact companies and take a non-litigious approach first. Their goal is to promote OSS and they can do that a lot better by contacting companies and convincing them to comply and contribute, rather than costing those companies cash out of pocket and making them scared of OSS in future.
FSF stands for software freedom (Score:5, Informative)
Quite right, the FSF has a history of contacting people first and silently arranging compliance [digitalcitizen.info].
Actually the Free Software Foundation's goals have nothing to do with "OSS" (open source software) and should not be confused with that movement's goals. The FSF predates the open source movement, the Open Source Initiative, and the FSF is appropriately critical of the open source movement's goals [gnu.org]. People from the FSF (most notably Richard Stallman) are the principal authors of the GPLs, and Stallman makes a sharp distinction between the free software movement (which he founded) and the open source movement. You can find clear descriptions of that difference and practical consequences of that difference in almost any of his talks online or the essay I linked to.
Dumb Summary (Score:2, Insightful)
It's an unusual enforcement action, though, because they don't want Apple to just make the app disappear, they want Apple to grant its users the full freedoms offered by the GPL.
Wow, they want Apple to actually follow the license? Bizarre ... what an unusual request! I don't know who wrote the app but if Apple wants to license crap through its stores, it better do the footwork to make sure that it can license what it is licensing. If Apple can't get the source code to the users and Apple was the one who distributed and re-licensed that software then I'd encourage any user with the app to sue for their right to also have access to the source code. Seems like a pretty straight fo
No Kidding (Score:5, Informative)
Reality:
In most ways, this is a typical enforcement action for the FSF: we want to resolve this situation as amicably as possible. We have not sued Apple, nor have we sent them any legal demand that they remove the programs from the App Store.
Slashdot:
It's an unusual enforcement action, though, because they don't want Apple to just make the app disappear, they want Apple to grant its users the full freedoms offered by the GPL.
Normal for the FSF, but not for anyone else. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's normal for the FSF, but abnormal in the litigation-happy world of copyright law.
Do you think that the RIAA is in the habit of asking nicely? Or the MPAA? Or maybe we should compare this to the bad blood of Viacom v. YouTube?
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is like the old MacOS version of multitasking: hope that developers play nice with each other.
Ultimately, you can't trust it. If you are going to make up some bogus rules and an
enforcement apparatus you should at least follow through with all of that and at
least bother to do a decent job. This isn't the first problematic app to slip through
Apple's fingers like this.
By choosing to be platform tyrant, they get to take responsibility for all of this
nonsense.
I know what I would do. (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were Apple, I would just pull the app and call it done. Why bother mucking around with the GPL and the like? Why run the risk of having to deal with demands for access, etc?
Just get rid of the app and make the problem go away.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If I were Apple, I would just pull the app and call it done.
They already did [apple.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I know what I would do. (Score:5, Interesting)
Although the FSF tends to be far too kind, the fact is copyright law doesnt work that way. They are still on the hook for infringement already committed - or at least could be, if the copyright holders want to pursue it.
Re: (Score:2)
--sabre86
Who is on the hook? (Score:2)
Apple or the people that published it in the store?
I vote the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think Apple should be treated any differently?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well then I have a contract with John Cantbefound who has been installing software and media on my computer for years. In the contract he specifies that he will not put material that I do not have rights to use onto my computer.
Re:I know what I would do. (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? The first part quoted says in legalese the the developer affirms that the submitted code is owned or controlled by the developer and that the distribution of the code does not violate the rights of any third party. The second part covers FOSS software namely that the developer will not do what he/she did in this particular case. That does get Apple off the hook. It's basic contract law.
As an analogy, suppose you sell me a car but I don't have all the money. Under the sales agreement I provide you with a monthly payment until the full amount is settled. Then later I found out you stole the car. The agreement is void as you didn't have rights to sell the car. I don't have to pay you any monthly payment and if I am not obligated to return the car to you if I return the car to the local authorities. Can I be charged by the police with stolen property? No, because I believe you were the rightful owner and I complied with the law on stolen property.
Re:I know what I would do. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If I were Apple, I would just pull the app and call it done. Why bother mucking around with the GPL and the like? Why run the risk of having to deal with demands for access, etc?
That's probably what they will do, but you never know. More apps in the app store means more happy customers and may lead to more iPhone sales. Apple is a pretty OSS savvy company and knows the value of cooperation with the open source community. They also happen to have a lot of OSS geeks working there. It is possible Apple will take the harder, but more conciliatory approach of adding a license clause to exempt GPL software from the no-redistribution clause and in so doing open the way for GPL code to mak
Kill switch? (Score:2)
The real question is, will they Kill Switch the app for those who have already downloaded it?
That'd be a woefully ironic way of responding to the FSF's concerns about user's rights. "Oh, sorry, FSF. Just to show you how sorry we are, we'll remotely disable all copies of that app. That way, nobody will be left with a copy of the app that doesn't fully comply with the GPL terms. All better?"
Re: (Score:2)
What apps have they ever "kill switched"?
I have apps that due to private api violations can no longer be downloaded from the store but continue to run quite well on my up-to-date touch.
Re:I know what I would do. (Score:5, Informative)
Apple's Developer Agreement for the iPhone SDK explicitly specified that your application must comply with open-source license terms.
So if someone puts up a GPL application on the App Store without the source, they're not just in violation of the GPL, they're also in violation of Apple's terms.
From http://adcdownload.apple.com/iphone/iphone_sdk_3.2__final/iphone_sdk_agreement.pdf [apple.com], "3.3.16 If Your Application includes any FOSS, You agree to comply with all applicable FOSS licensing terms. You also agree not to use any FOSS in the development of Your Application in such a way that would cause the non-FOSS portions of the SDK to be subject to any FOSS licensing terms or obligations."
In part, obviously, this is to keep someone from trying to lever open Apple's code with an FOSS license. But they've written it so that it also protects FOSS users and developers. It reads, to me, a lot like the GPL clause that says, "if you can't follow all these rules, you can't distribute the software."
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is not even the people who violated the GPL-- it's the authors of the App who are distributing it (through Apple's store). Said authors are responsible, although I'm sure the FSF would love to go after Apple's deeper pockets instead.
Apple doesn't give App developers 1099's for the same reason-- Apple isn't selling; they are providing the marketplace infrastructure for the app developers to sell.
They'll work around it. (Score:2)
Apple isn't stopping you from sharing the source (Score:4, Interesting)
Nothing about the app store means that you can't freely share the code and load it on your own devices. Nothing legally stops you from jailbreaking the device, and loading on the source yourself.
However, it seems that the argument is that anything that falls under the GPL in binary form must be redistributed without restriction, regardless of the availability of the source code. I'm not so sure on this. It seems to me that if the source code is available freely, than the license terms are fulfilled, but what do I know, I'm not a lawyer...
mod up (Score:3, Funny)
They should be going after the author, not Apple. More FSF grandstanding.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems to me that if the source code is available freely, than the license terms are fulfilled, but what do I know, I'm not a lawyer...
No, no you are not. But this is really something that software developers who plan on reuse should know. From Section 6 of the GPLv2 [gnu.org]:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
Is Apple redistributing the Program or a derivative thereof? What's more they're relicensing it with a noncompliant license. I think we got a legitimate problem here ... If Apple wants to redistribute, they must provide a license to the consumer telling them how to obtain the source and notifying the consumer that they are free to copy, distribute or modify said Program (o
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is Apple redistributing the Program or a derivative thereof? What's more they're relicensing it with a noncompliant license. I think we got a legitimate problem here ... If Apple wants to redistribute, they must provide a license to the consumer telling them how to obtain the source and notifying the consumer that they are free to copy, distribute or modify said Program (of course by the GPLv2 rules).
As an app store developer, I can tell you Apple lets the developer supply the license, and it's embedded in the app store for your product.
Because the developer supplies the license for the app store, this is really the developers issue again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The terms of service conflict (Score:5, Informative)
The GPLv2 [gnu.org] section 6 states
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
The iTunes Store Terms of Service [apple.com] section 10b states:
b. Use of Products. You acknowledge that Products (other than the iTunes Plus Products) contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following applicable Usage Rules, and, whether or not Products are limited by security technology, you agree to use Products in compliance with the applicable Usage Rules.
Usage Rules ...
(i) Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement.
(ii) You shall be authorized to use the Products only for personal, noncommercial use.
(iii) You shall be authorized to use the Products on five Apple-authorized devices at any time, except in the case of Movie Rentals, as described below.
Therefore distributing through the iTunes Store adds restrictions on use that are prohibited by the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
And those Terms of Service only apply to the binary version. Hence my question, because if the source code is freely available, you can load it on as many devices as you want.
I honestly don't know if having just the source code available fulfills the license, hence my question.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The definition of "Products" for the section I quoted does include software:
1. Definition of the iTunes Store Service. Apple is the provider of the iTunes Store (the "Service") that permits you to purchase or rent (as applicable) digital content, such as sound recordings and videos (including movies and television shows), games, software, and ring tones, under certain terms and conditions as set forth in this Agreement. ...
b. Security. You understand that the Service, and products transacted through the Service, such as sound recordings, videos (including movies and television shows), games, software, ring tones, and related artwork ("Products"), include a security framework using technology that protects digital information and limits your usage of Products to certain usage rules established by Apple and its licensors ("Usage Rules").
You are correct that there is an additional license specific to the app store, so it is possible that this one only covers the old iPod games/software and not iPhone apps. I don't have a iPhone or App Store account so I'm not certain if the user has to accept both agreements, or just the one.
Anyway, for completeness, the App Store terms of agreement [apple.com] has simular restrictions:
b. Use of Products. You acknowledge that Products contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following applicable Usage Rules, and, whether or not Products are limited by security technology, you agree to use Products in compliance with the applicable Usage Rules.
Usage Rules
(i) Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement and the applicable end-user license agreement.
(ii) You shall be able to store Products from up to five different Accounts on certain iPhone OS-based devices (including, but not limited to, iPad, iPod touch or iPhone), at a time.
(iii) You shall be able to store Products on five iTunes-authorized devices at any time.
Apple Says iPhone Jailbreaking is Illegal (Score:3, Informative)
Link to full article on EFF [eff.org]
GPL Question (Score:2)
Would it satisfy the GPL requirements if the source code was made available for free download on another site or does it have to be included with the binary?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:GPL Question (Score:4, Insightful)
While the source is a problem, the bigger problem is that the GPL states that you're not allowed to prevent people from redistributing the binary. Can you transfer an app from your phone to another one without Apple trying to stop you? No.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Apple store apps transfer from device to device. I can also delete the app and download it again as often as I like.
Re: (Score:2)
While the source is a problem, the bigger problem is that the GPL states that you're not allowed to prevent people from redistributing the binary. Can you transfer an app from your phone to another one without Apple trying to stop you? No.
You can install apps on an unlimited number of iPhones/iPod Touches as long as you either authorize the device by signing in and redownloading the app directly or authorize the other person's iTunes to download and sync the app from your account.
Re:GPL Question (Score:4, Insightful)
The GPL says you have the right to redistribute. It doesn't say that other people have to help you do it. It was a case of having the right to do something (modify the software) but not the ability to benefit from it (by installing a modified version in a Tivo) that pushed the FSF into writing GPLv3.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. Apple doesn't really try to stop anyone, they do strongly advise against it and won't support you if you do it. They certainly don't have to provide you with the tools to do so.
I assure you however, I've copied apps between phones with a simple scp command line.
Apple doesn't have to help you do it or do it for you, they don't even have to make it easy.
From a technical perspective, if someone can solder up a connection to the flash chips and dump it, they've met that particular clause, regardless of h
Summary is misleading (Score:2)
For the FSF, at least, that is not unusual at all. Quite the opposite, that is always their goal when approaching violators.
Is it Apple's? (Score:2)
Neither TFS nor TFA make it clear whether the offending application is published by Apple, but it seems that the answer is "no". If so, I fail to see why Apple should be responsible for non-compliance here. Yes, their licensing terms are restrictive, but if some developer didn't realize that they are incompatible with GPL, it's his problem - not Apple's (and not FSF's).
From Apple's perspective, they simply have an application in App Store which is infringing on FSF copyright. I'd imagine that they have some
Re: (Score:2)
apple is the distributor of the software. It is distribution that gets you in trouble with the GPL. If you download a GPL app, and modify it, and then never distribute it to anyone else, then you are not required to share your source code modifications. It is in distribution that you violate the GPL, if you do distribute your modified app, then you are required to include all the source code.
This is where apple is in violation because they are the distributor of the app, not the developers.
The answer is simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The answer is simple. (Score:4, Informative)
Indeed, they have already taken the app down because it is a GPL violation. There are other GPL apps on the store though that are in compliance, with the source available via developer website linked within the app - it's not a fundamental incompatibility with the app store, it seems to be a developer issue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Simply making the source available isn't sufficient to make a program GPL-compliant. You also need to redistribute it with terms compatible with the GPL, which means that you need to include with your program a license that allows free redistribution.
Programs distributed via the app store do not include such licenses, since they are built with the iphone SDK, and Apple doesn't permit redistribution of programs built with the SDK.
It doesn't matter that you can build the same program with your own copy of th
Re:The answer is simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
No Apple app store app can, currently, be in compliance with the GPL. This is about Clause 6, which requires you to allow redistribution of any GPL app, as is (something that apple prevents via license and technical measures) and has nothing to do with source code.
Re: (Score:2)
But that is exactly why the FSF has a great track record in bringing companies into compliance - they give them advance notice, talk with them, their main goal is to bring them into compliance, not to sue.
What really is lost if they are in violation of the GPL for a week? The outcome matters. A victory for Free Software is still a victory if it doesn't materialize immediately right now.
From the Fine Article (Score:4, Insightful)
The EFF details some ways that suggest to me that Apple will never be able to be in compliance with the GPL under their current terms and conditions. For example: GPLv2, Section 6:
From EFF's dissection of Apple's Agreement:
I am not a lawyer, but I would say that together these mean that Apple is in violation of the GPL if it distributes GPL code through its app store; it either needs to waive those terms in 7.2 (hah!) or outright ban GPL'ed code in the app store.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Section 7.2 may be restrictive, but the EFFs response is an attempt to confuse the issue. They are mixing Apples right to control the use of their SDK and store front and exclusivity with the distribution of the application outside the store.
Violation or not, thats a clear attempt to mix in other parts of the EFFs agenda in an attempt to equate them to being one and the same, which they most certainly are not.
This is reminscint of "Sita Sings the Blues" (Score:5, Interesting)
The producer of the full-length, animated movie "Sita Sings the Blues" recently found herself in a similar situation.
She had an eye-opening experience when she went to license the music in the movie (from the 1920s) and found out that it cost $50K for the rights and another $20K for the lawyers to do the clearance work - for recordings that are in the public domain (but the lyrics are not).
Because of that she decided to release the movie under the Creative Commons Share-Alike license - which, I believe, is the version most like the GPL(and she also took out a loan for the music rights). The movie has been very popular, Roger Ebert raved about it, even the guys on his old TV show (now called "At the Movies") gave it high marks. So eventually Netflix came a-calling, they offered her something like $7K up front for the right to stream the movie. However, she insisted that they stream it without DRM and their system is just not set up to do that, it's like they never conceived of the idea of Free content when they designed it. Kinda ironic in retrospect because I'd be really surprised if, just like most of the interwebs, a whole lot of netflix's infrastructure didn't run on Free software,
Anyway, she was willing to compromise - she would grant an exception to the licensing terms and they could DRM it, if they would run a placard at the start of the movie telling viewers that it was Free and where to get it from. No dice said Netflix. So she no dice too.
So, my bet is that Apple goes the same way as netflix - unwilling to compromise because their world view has no room in it for Free software for regular users.
BTW:
Sita Sings the Blues - main site [sitasingstheblues.com]
Download page - including bittorrent of a very nice 4GB 1080p mkv, also streaming from Youtube, etc [sitasingstheblues.com]
IMDB Page [imdb.com]
Ebert's review [suntimes.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And the movies creator also has very little room in the world for DRM.
Both are pushing their agendas on others and both are losing for it in this particular instance.
She's no more 'pushing her agenda' than anyone else is "pushing an agenda" who follows traditional copyright.
According to the law, the rights are granted to the creator, not forced on her.
Re:Wrong People (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wrong People (Score:5, Interesting)
O RLY?
What's preventing the developers from posting source on their web site like the other GPL apps on the app store?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What?
Let's look at the situation in a little more detail instead of handwaving it away.
Apple distributes something (a zip file) which includes an App licensed under the GPL written by an Author who provides said zip file to Apple to distribute.
Walmart distributes something (a router) which includes an App (Linux kernel) licensed under the GPL produced by an company (Linksys) who provides said router to Apple to distribute.
To me: A store sells an object licensed under the GPL produced by another party.
So....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So.... how's Walmart not an acceptable analogy?
Wal-Mart just re-sells copies that were sold to it. A copyright license simply doesn't apply and isn't even required. Wal-Mart didn't conduct any activity that is protected by copyright, and thus doesn't need to obtain with or comply with a license to conduct that activity.
Meanwhile Apple actually makes and distributes copies of the zip file. This is an activity that is covered by copyright. They are prohibited from doing this without a licnese. So they need a
Re: (Score:2)
So the app maker provides a link to their website (as many thousands of apps on the app store do to have forums/feedback/further info for the app in question) and on that website they have a big link that says "download source code".
They can include all the GPL code they have used, and leave out any Apple code that is not allowed to be released. If it is impossible to separate it out like this, then it wasn't Apple's fault in the first place, it was the developers for using GPL code in a way that would not
Re: (Score:2)
What? Sorry but that is total bollocks.
'Apple won't let them' is sod all to do with anything. It is the developer's responsibility to check for conflicting licences / areas where the licence cannot possible be used, not Apple's responsibility
The only way this is 'Apple won't let them' is because the port is attached to proprietary Apple stuff (in terms of the full source) and the fact Apple's terms disallow modification (what do you want them to say? 'Huh, yeah, sure, durr... buy apps and modify them even i
Re: (Score:2)
not Apple's responsibility
If its not apples responsibility for what they host on their servers, then isnt it also not the pirate bays (or napster, or imesh, etc..) responsibility for what is hosted on theirs?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you take $99/year to distribute a product which is routinely governed by rules on re-distribution, force a convoluted review process, sell from your storefront, and take a 30% cut of what you're selling, it most certainly is your responsibility to check the origin. Otherwise you've just provided a get-out clause to all fences in history: "How was I supposed to know it was stolen!? He told me he found it washed up on the beach! Would jewelry ever be stolen?"
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing. Apple is the retailer; but they aren't just the retailer. They are also the ones imposing the restrictions that make the App GPL-violating.
They are talking to both (Score:3, Informative)
From the press release:
The upstream developers for this port are also violating the GPL, and we are discussing this with them too. We are raising the issue with Apple as well since Apple is the one that distributes this software to the public; legally, both parties have the responsibility to comply with the GPL.
They are both responsible, but Apple is the only one that can change their licensing terms to make it legal to release GPL software for the iPhone. Since the FSF would prefer that option over having the application removed from the store, contacting Apple and letting them choose the path forward is the pragmatic and diplomatic thing to do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not really, it's just pragmatic. The GPL leads the world closer to where it would be without intellectual property protections. Those of us who don't respect intellectual property lose nothing substantial by the GPL's terms - we ignore the mechanisms as we would any other license. Practically, we gain in that the "encumberance" in the license is for things we consider illegitimate, and the people who believe in IP find the board begin to tilt towards where we wanted it to be in the first place. We already h
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In case you didn't read the summary, the project in question is GNU Go [gnu.org]. Just in case the 'GNU' before the project name didn't tip you off, the copyright blurb for that program is: 'Copyright 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 by the Free Software Foundation.' Yes, indeed the FSF actually writes code. Who woulda thunk? A snowball will freeze in hell before we see the FSF dual-license any of their own code just to make this sort of accommodation. They have been staunch ide
Re: (Score:3)
I've read the licence but I'm saying that certain causes are potentially unenforceable towards the first party (developer) let alone any third parties. The viral nature of the license for example from even linking to code should be denied. That implies that the license can somehow overwrite the copyright of another author.
Listen, it's pretty bloody simple: as soon as you make a copy of a piece of software, you need to have a licence to make that copy. If you don't have a licence, you can't make the copy. That's the reason it's illegal to copy computer games and share them using BitTorrent or Gnutella. The only difference here is that the FSF is using copyright law backwards, to make sure that nobody tries to stop you from sharing their software with anyone you like.
I don't know who you think is a "third party" in this case.