Open Source Licensing and the App Store Model 251
snydeq writes "Savio Rodrigues sheds light on the limitations open source software faces in app stores, a problem that will only increase as the app store model proliferates. 'In effect, in the context of a GPLv2 license, an Apple App Store item that abides by Apple's terms of service is deemed to be restricting usage and imposing further limitation on usage rights than were envisioned by the original licensor of the open source code,' Rodrigues writes. 'Far from being an abstract example, this situation is precisely why the popular VLC media player was removed from the App Store.' Microsoft, for its part, disallows the use of GPLv2 altogether. 'With the vast amount of GPLv2 code available for use, the incompatibility between the App Store's (and Windows Marketplace's) terms of service on one hand and GPLv2 on the other is a problem in need of a fix.'"
What about Xcode? (Score:2)
Apple's Xcode is included in the Mac App Store. It includes GPLed stuff like GCC. Can this be a problem like VLC?
Or are the rules for the Mac App Store different from those of the iOS App Store?
Re:What about Xcode? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple makes their gcc/etc source code available [apple.com] and the app store version of the gcc binary doesn't have any DRM and can be copied/modified so the FSF shouldn't have any reason to complain.
Re: (Score:3)
VLC wasn't a problem until a single contributor (and nokia employee) complained to Apple to have it removed.
Apple makes their gcc/etc source code available [apple.com] and the app store version of the gcc binary doesn't have any DRM and can be copied/modified so the FSF shouldn't have any reason to complain.
No need to mention DRM, since DRM does not inherently conflict with GPLv2. The problem with GPLv2 and app stores is with the terms of services of the app stores.
Re: (Score:2)
DRM does inherently conflict with the GPL. DRM is specifically about preventing users from exercising some of the rights that the GPL provides. As in it's there to prevent you from copying the code. Now, I suppose that you could recompile the software without the DRM, but that's really reaching.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm from Tivo. We're suing you for patent infringement.
Re: (Score:3)
I create a video player that reads a video file and a decryption key, Neither of these things are part of the video player's code base.
I sell you a piece of hardware which includes: 1) The video player software burned into some write-once chip 2) The complete source code for that software.
You have the source-code, and you can compile it yourself in such a way that you can view any keys involved. But you can't* modify the device I sold you (the device itself isn't covered by any license or law requiring it
Re:What about Xcode? (Score:4, Informative)
No, they don't have to offer it "via exactly the same means as the binaries".
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Nothing in there says that the source must be provided in the same form as the binary. You could have binaries released via the App store, but mail out source code on CD, for instance.
Re: (Score:3)
Xcode is distributed by Apple itself, so they place no additional burden (with respect to providing source code on request etc) by putting it in the app store.
Re:What about Xcode? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem that had been noted with VLC was that you had to go to a 'third party' site for the source, and you couldn't build the actual app and install it without additional hurdles. In this case the Xcode application itself isn't GPLd, LLVM (the default C/C++/Obj-C compiler) is similar to the BSD license, and any GPL source elements are available from Apple (http://opensource.apple.com/).
Xcode4 is kind of an odd duck in that it doesn't conform specifically to OSX AppStore guidelines (installs outside of /Applications, isn't a single .app file, etc)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem that had been noted with VLC was that you had to go to a 'third party' site for the source, and you couldn't build the actual app and install it without additional hurdles.
No, none of those were the problem with VLC. The problem with VLC was that the terms of service of the App Store, which users must agree to in order to be allowed to download and install the app, conflict with GPLv2.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, not really, since there are other GPLv2 apps on the store - the developer, who was part of the team that put VLC together objected after the fact, so Apple said "ok, we'll comply and take it down".
I think the FSF were expecting Apple to do something different (ie, do what the FSF "suggested" they do), rather than simply comply with the removal request. But hey, double win, since this means they can call it "being hostile to open source" and "removing open source apps from the store!"
LLVM is not the default (Score:2)
Although LLVM now ships with XCode, a combination of LLVM and GCC is still the default compiler for new iPhone projects. LLVM for the whole compile chain is an option but not the default.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's Xcode is included in the Mac App Store. It includes GPLed stuff like GCC. Can this be a problem like VLC?
Or are the rules for the Mac App Store different from those of the iOS App Store?
Completely different. The Mac App Store is simply another way of getting software on your Mac. On iOS, the App Store is the only way of getting software.
Wrong, two other ways (Score:2)
Completely different. The Mac App Store is simply another way of getting software on your Mac. On iOS, the App Store is the only way of getting software.
That is untrue. The first way is jailbreaking; but lets ignore that for the moment.
The second way is compiling and installing yourself. Which is something you would be able to do with the developer tools, which you would need anyway once you get access to the source.
Anyone who can make use of the source can also get a build onto the device, in two differe
Re:Wrong, two other ways (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, lets. Because it forces you to violate an EULA you agree to when you start using the device. You shouldn't be forced to violate a contract (of any kind) to be free to do as you wish.
The developer tools themselves do not allow you to load them. You must pay the yearly $99 fee to load them on your phone, and even then it is a limited "beta" signature that will eventually expire (90 days, I believe.) So even then Apple is placing restrictions on your use of the software.
I hardly call forcing people to violate an EULA, and forcing them to pay $99 to load software they compile themselves on a device they own "effective" or even remotely reasonable.
Re: (Score:3)
Lugaru HD is on the Mac App store which is a game whose source is released under the GPL.
Limited problem. (Score:4, Interesting)
First, this article is a pitch for OpenLogic's software.
The problem has a limited number of causes:
Were the second case not true, this wouldn't be an issue. If the first case were not true, this would probably not be an issue either. Both cases being true make Open Source (or rather, Free Software) unwelcome on both Microsoft and Apple's mobile platforms, which is exactly how they want it.
Re: (Score:2)
The question really is why does Apple force a ToS that prohibit the use of GPL code.
The second question is if the benefit of GPL and other free code is strong enough to make these closed platforms uncompetative.
In some cases it will be better to simply use the GPL code and not realase on platforms that don't allow GPL code.
Re:Limited problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a side effect of their desire to lay terms and conditions on the users of the App Store. The Apple philosophy seems to be control, regardless of what side-effects it has.
This feeds into the desire for a solid experience, but I think it's become a ridiculous and punitive obsession.
People are trying, of course. But no vendor seems to have the wherewithal to create a truly good experience, or try and generate the hype necessary to counter Apple. And Apple could undermine that by allowing end-users to load software freely without the App Store.
And I don't at all count Google as the savior here, since going with them basically means you're throwing the existing world of open source and Free Software on a bonfire (which is expected, when you're conforming to design decisions made for what was supposed to be closed source software.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And I don't at all count Google as the savior here, since going with them basically means you're throwing the existing world of open source and Free Software on a bonfire (which is expected, when you're conforming to design decisions made for what was supposed to be closed source software.)
I don't know... Android is clearly not the supreme platform for open source software, but it's still the best of all the viable alternatives. And if it wins in the marketplace then we're on much stronger footing because getting a fully-open solution working which is compatible with the dominant platform is much easier when the dominant platform is mostly open and Linux-based.
Re: (Score:2)
I though you could build a fully open source Android? The Cyanogen wiki says it is GPL and Apache licensed (which I assume means that some bits are GPL and others are Apache).
Re: (Score:2)
I though you could build a fully open source Android? The Cyanogen wiki says it is GPL and Apache licensed (which I assume means that some bits are GPL and others are Apache).
Right, but that's not what you get on your phone when you go to Verizon and ask them for a Droid, because Motorola has made changes (presumably to the Apache licensed bits) which they don't publish, and have everything set up to prevent you from changing things as you like.
I think what I'd really like to see is something like the Nexus line, but available on all carriers and capable of running apt-get and anything else in the GNU userland.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that there is nothing existing in the open source world that is compatible with Android... except Android. It was never meant to be compatible, it was meant to be proprietary.
Re: (Score:3)
OK, but so what? Android is just the UI and some libraries, it's still Linux underneath and it's all open source. You don't really have to re-implement anything -- if you need some library from desktop Linux that isn't in Android, you don't have to rewrite it, you just have to statically link it. There is obviously some work to be done to e.g. get gtk and qt working with the Android UI, but they already work with OS X and win32 and I'll eat my hat if they can't reuse a large majority of the OS-dependent cod
Re: (Score:2)
The question really is why does Apple force a ToS that prohibit the use of GPL code.
Because they are free to choose whatever ToS they desire for whatever reason they desire. It's their app store, their platform and their customers voting with their wallets.
The second question is if the benefit of GPL and other free code is strong enough to make these closed platforms uncompetative.
In some cases it will be better to simply use the GPL code and not realase on platforms that don't allow GPL code.
No. The ToS presents an artificial barrier that favors apps that abide by their ToS. Since there is a profit incentive to be a successful app and no profit incentive to be a ideologically pure app, I suspect that the ToS-compliant apps and their platforms will survive nicely (lot's of people don't care about FOSS ideology) and GPL apps will never be allowed to compete in those official app stores.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, but we're apparently in the extreme minority. Sometimes I wonder if I'm missing out by not having a Facebook page, an iPhone/Android, meaningless sex with chicks from bars, and a big screen television that gets 2000 channels. Then I usually come to my senses and start to hate that shit again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:App Store Model? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, real geeks value their time enough to know that reinventing the wheel is usually an immensely stupid idea. App stores are for those who value their time more than they value the $1.99 they'll spend on an app that's available now, and addresses their needs.
Re: (Score:2)
If the source were included (or included as an option) in the download, would that resolve the issue? Most people would not include the optional extra, but providing it could resolve the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Inclusion of the source code would not resolve the issue, because it still places restrictions on how the App can be used. Not that it would help, since the user can't rebuild/load it anyway without violating the Apple EULA.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you get that out of GPL v3? (Score:3)
No, the alleged issue -- the biggest, anyways, there's a few more -- is that you can't redistribute the binary (well, you can to jailbroken devices or developers who can run codesign themselves, but in the general case you can't). Source doesn't come into it at all; anyone who claims source distribution is an issue should be gently corrected
To me this seems exactly backwards. The whole section six of the GPLv3 is all about various forms of binary distribution can provide a way to get to the source. The G
Try paying attention to the LEGALITY (Score:4, Interesting)
You appear to utterly misunderstand the FSF's position. From the PC Magazine article on the VLC flap:
Well excuse me for studying the legal language of the GPL instead of the "position" of the FSF.
I mean, I've only been carefully reading through variants of the GPL and thinking about the wording for 20 years but whatever.
You see "source" mentioned anywhere there? Nope. That's because it's not about the source.
It might not be in the "position" but far more relevant is what an application must do to abide by the GPL.
I know what the FSF is saying, I just don't see it in the license which in fact talks at great length about SOURCE. And the point of the GPL is that you have access to the SOURCE. Free as in speech, remember? And I did in fact mention section six, which you didn't bother to read whatsoever I gather? Because that's where it goes on and on about SOURCE in relation to the binary, which it treats as an afterthought.
Can you (or since you are unwilling, anyone else) point to where in the license the FSF position is codified in legal language instead of baboon like posturing (and know here that I am a card-carrying member of the FSF, can you say the same?)
Re: (Score:3)
Can you (or since you are unwilling, anyone else) point to where in the license the FSF position is codified in legal language
AIUI, the issue is with these sections of GPLv2:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
2. Brett Smith is not a lawyer.
3. The reason VLC isn't on the app store is because Rémi Denis-Courmont filed a copyright infringement notice.
Re: (Score:3)
Since there is no way in hell ... and nor should there be, anyone who is sane enough to recognize security concerns attendant on any responsible smartphone provider will accept ... that Apple will ever allow unsigned binaries access to their devices, this issue is effectively unresolvable until the FSF pulls its head out and accepts that the general public really, truly, should have code signing protection, remote malware killswitch, etc. for their smartphone devices; there's just too much personal and financial information available there for any responsible company to not do their best to lock down the platform.
There is nothing preventing the GPL from being compatible with those things if implemented properly. The key is that you have to make installing unsigned software obnoxious but not impossible, so that anybody who wants to can do it but at the same time nobody will do it lightly or by accident. The developer option would probably be fine if you didn't have to pay anything or buy a Mac to exercise it.
'Tis strange indeed that whilst the TOS of Android Market are similarly infringing in all the ways that are alleged to matter wrt remote kill and so forth, the Apple-bad crowd never seem to notice...
Because you can install Android apps that aren't from the Android Market?
Why does that make a difference? (Score:2)
The developer option would probably be fine if you didn't have to pay anything or buy a Mac to exercise it.
I'm not seeing why that is the sticking point, when you have to buy a computer at all to compile anything. Buying a Mac or a developer account (which BTW is not 100% required since you could also jailbreak and deploy that way) seems like variations on a theme instead of a major difference.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not seeing why that is the sticking point, when you have to buy a computer at all to compile anything.
It's a sticking point because it adds a major unnecessary restriction. 90% computers aren't Macs, and you're excluding all those people even though they meet all of the inherent requirements for compiling the code.
And jailbreaking doesn't count because it's not formally permitted so you can't get it past the lawyers. It would be a different story if Apple officially accepted it as a method for installing software.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you can't. At least not without jailbreaking, which is of dubious legality and means losing access to future updates. Also, it can only be done at all because Apple programmers screw up - it's still possible they'll come up in future with a phone which is impossible to jailbreak without warming up a soldering iron.
Android, in contrast, only runs signed code by default - but there is a very simple option you can untick to change this,
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
FF4 RC1 on Vista64... odd.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm using ff 3.6.15 on Ubuntu and I don't see his bullets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The App Store could be compatible with the GPL, if Steve Jobs didn't have the "my way or the highway" stick up his ass. The App Store is either poorly designed, or well designed if violating the GPL is you main goal.
The GPL could be compatible with the App Store if RMS didn't have the "my way or the highway" stick up his ass. The GPL is either poorly designed, or well designed if violating Apple and its customers is you main goal.
Clarification Needed (Score:2)
Maybe the Free Software Foundation and Apple needs to sit down together, so we open source developers can find out where they stand.
Myself, I have no issue paying for open source, especially when it helps the developers, but it would be nice to be able to have open source software on the app store. What do companies like Apple have to fear?
Re:Clarification Needed (Score:4, Insightful)
It'll never happen. Apple would have to give up some control over the platform and they'll NEVER let that happen.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm just surprised that Steve allows Apple users to keep their keyboards, mouses and touchscreen. I'm thinking their getting dangerously inventing something like this: Apple's goal invention. [wikipedia.org]
Don't buy anything that uses such an App store (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem fixed.
Then buy what instead? (Score:2)
You recommended not buying any computing appliance with lockdown comparable to an iPod touch, iPhone, or iPad. But say I want to buy a device for playing video games, in genres other than FPS or RTS, on the living room TV with a housemate or visiting friends. Microsoft's device has lockdown comparable to Apple's. Nintendo's device and Sony's device have even more restrictive lockdown, and any jailbreaks that do exist will evaporate in the next system software update. What make and model would you recommend
Re: (Score:2)
If there was a massive existing library of excellent, best of breed open source games which worked fine on your console but were not allowed by the manufacturer for licensing reasons, I could see people being upset about it.
Re: (Score:3)
A) You can still buy an Android phone even if you buy a Wii.
B) They have a device called a "PC" which is mostly open and runs a lot of video games.
Single-player devices (Score:2)
But say I want to buy a device for playing video games, in genres other than FPS or RTS, on the living room TV with a housemate or visiting friends.
You can still buy an Android phone even if you buy a Wii.
Android-powered phones are single-player. Sure, some newer Android-powered devices have TV output, but I'm not aware of anything in the Android API allowing gamepad input; if there is something, it's well HID-den. Even if a game supports WLAN play, is the host expected to buy phones and copies of each game for players 2, 3, and 4 to use?
They have a device called a "PC" which is mostly open and runs a lot of video games.
I'm aware of this. But most developers of PC games appear to be under the impression that the PC is single-player, ignoring the possibility of four gamepads and an HDTV moni
Re: (Score:3)
Even if a game supports WLAN play, is the host expected to buy phones and copies of each game for players 2, 3, and 4 to use?
Of course not. Each player can supply their own device and copy of the game like any other LAN party.
That's actually a pretty good idea: Using a touchscreen phone as a game controller and then hooking one of the phones up to a TV, with multiplayer over 802.11. I hope that catches on.
But most developers of PC games appear to be under the impression that the PC is single-player, ignoring the possibility of four gamepads and an HDTV monitor.
That's because it mostly is, or at least the usual model is that each player has their own PC. But what's wrong with that? It's easier than ever because modern laptops are fast enough to play almost all PC games, so you don't ev
Re: (Score:2)
Problem fixed.
Number of replies to this story: 88 (as of 10:45 PM ET, March 12)
4.5 Million Tablets Were Sold in Q3 2010; 4.2 Million Were iPads [allthingsd.com]
You do the math.
Re: (Score:3)
http://techaryan.com/eric-schmidt-350000-android-activations-every [techaryan.com]
350,000 Android activations *every day*. Do you really want to do the math?
Re: (Score:2)
Problem fixed.
Or just take advantage of the large amount of non-copyleft yet open source code available. Then you don't have to take an option off the table entirely, ironically. People who work hard on their projects and want to restrict distribution in accordance with the ideals of the GPL should (and do) have that choice; there is plenty of free stuff (and more) available to those who choose not to be so rigid.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how forgoing all copyleft software is solving the problem mentioned in this story (since this story is specifically about the problem with using that software), regardless of if you use other software or not.
OTOH, if you stick to devices which don't impose restrictions on the software you can run, you do in fact solve the problem, if only for yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
"Yeah, that'll solve the problem. Cause FOSS has such an easy time with distribution now, it don't need no steenking app store."
Maybe it doesn't need no stinking *Apple* app store if other contenders (I'm looking at you, Android) are clever enough to offer better conditions to open source developers.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it doesn't need no stinking *Apple* app store if other contenders (I'm looking at you, Android) are clever enough to offer better conditions to open source developers.
It doesn't matter that the shelves are filled if the store is empty.
No customers.
iPad to grab up to 80 percent of the 2011 tablet market share, report claims [phonedog.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter that the shelves are filled if the store is empty.
No customers.
Android market share now exceeds iOS market share. And that's with Apple still riding the first to market advantage on the iPad, so we'll see if that lasts once there are a few dozen Android tablet models on the market.
Correction on marketshare (Score:2)
Android market share now exceeds iOS market share. And that's with Apple still riding the first to market advantage on the iPad
It is my understanding that if you think of it in those terms, the numbers of total iOS devices when you include iPad and Touch units have Apple still leading in marketshare.
Also until this year the iPhone was carrier limited in the US so the device marketshare may change somewhat this year.
Re: (Score:2)
It's difficult to get exact numbers on a regular basis, at least I haven't found a source. On Jan 18 2011, Apple announce that 160 million iOS devices had been sold in total to date. On Feb 15 Google announced that 350,000 Android devices were coming online per day. It would seem that gives Android a fair chance of adding more devices this year than Apple has gathered in the history of iOS, but of course Apple is moving more units than ever too. Given their relative rates of growth, it seems inevitable
Re: (Score:2)
It is my understanding that if you think of it in those terms, the numbers of total iOS devices when you include iPad and Touch units have Apple still leading in marketshare.
I guess you're right, apparently when these companies publish market share they're comparing Android to iPhone rather than iOS. But the trend lines are still clear.
Also until this year the iPhone was carrier limited in the US so the device marketshare may change somewhat this year.
I'm sure it won't hurt them, but it's going to make the numbers hard to compare in the short term. There will be a lot of people who have been waiting to replace their AT&T iPhone 3 with a Verizon iPhone 4, which will cause a temporary spike in sales, but that just results in more iPhones in landfills rather than increasing the number in the
Re: (Score:2)
It was that way with phones a year ago, but already isn't now. iPad has been on the market for a year now; the first Android tablet blessed by Google came out two weeks ago. Give it the same time for tablets as it took for phones - if not less - and the store will be full.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Dude, apt-get get is like the mother of all app stores.
What does GPLv2 code have to gain here? (Score:2)
Why would FOSS developers care whether users who buy into company A's platform can use the software?
Isn't this something the people who bought company A's stuff should be talking to company A about, since the users are the ones at a disadvantage and company A's restrictive model is the reason?
Re: (Score:3)
Because Company A is making the arbitrary decision that users should not be allowed to use FOSS, and banking on them not caring because they don't know.
Re: (Score:2)
I get that, I agree with you... but.. why would FOSS care what company A does or if it's users can use FOSS? What does FOSS have to gain here?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not arbitrary. Apple have locked down their devices, and for (IMO) good reasons. The GPL forbids distribution of locked down derivatives, so it isn't Apple's doing, it's the GPL's. Same for Microsoft.
Re:What does GPLv2 code have to gain here? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not arbitrary. Apple have locked down their devices, and for (IMO) good reasons. The GPL forbids distribution of locked down derivatives, so it isn't Apple's doing, it's the GPL's. Same for Microsoft.
Citation needed. Give us the specific clause int he GPL Version 2 that states exactly that. Put up or shut up. The GPL Version 2 is a "source" license. Version 3 tries to go beyond that and specify what you can and cannot do with the binary. I'm not sure if those are enforceable but the author can always resort to copyright to block distribution.
Re: (Score:2)
Two things:
1) They have locked down their user's devices, not their devices.
2) They do so for the sole reason of forcing you under their control and services under their control. It provides no security whatsoever.
Not incompatible (Score:4, Insightful)
the incompatibility between the App Store's (and Windows Marketplace's) terms of service on one hand and GPLv2 on the other is a problem in need of a fix.'"
No, the app store model does not need a fix, because it's not inherently incompatible. Source code can still be provided, with download instructions.
What's in need of a fix are the fact that phones are locked down to prevent the user from modifying and installing any application they want, without crypto signing and the manufacturer's approval.
App store providers can fix it if they insert a clause in their license terms requiring the user be allowed to modify, compile, and install any application they want on their own, without requiring any crypto signatures.
Without the "cannot install your own app restrictions"; the app store is just a convenient installation program. Many GPL software applications use proprietary installers, such as InstallShield or MSI based installers, without source code provided to the installer; without GPL-violating DRM on the phone, the app store is just a fancy installer program that can install files directly from an URL or remote location.
Re:Not incompatible (Score:4, Insightful)
What's in need of a fix are the fact that phones are locked down to prevent the user from modifying and installing any application they want, without crypto signing and the manufacturer's approval.
The GPLv2 does not require that devices honor modifications, only that the user is free to download the source and the binary and modify and redistribute them. That was the entire lesson of TiVo and the motivation for GPLv3.
I would have thought that a reasonable way to solve this would be for a GPLv2 application distributed in the App Store to have a link to a web page where you can download the source and the binary. There would be a sort of philosophical question, given that you can't access the copy that's on your phone but I don't think the GPLv2 requires such pedantic exactitude. So long as you can get a copy of the source used to build that binary, I think the license is met.
And, of course, if you don't want software that you write to be used in such a fashion, use the GPLv3. I don't find anything wrong with that at all -- the author ought to decide based on what he or she feels is right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization [wikipedia.org]
Finally someone is thinking. (Score:2)
I would have thought that a reasonable way to solve this would be for a GPLv2 application distributed in the App Store to have a link to a web page where you can download the source and the binary.
Finally someone with some sense.
What I would were I building a GPL app would provide a link to the source and one of many innumerable pirate sites that strip the DRM from a binary. Then it wouldn't even be a pedantic thing, you'd be giving access to an open version of the binary.
Heck, technically the actual "bina
Re: (Score:2)
I would have thought that a reasonable way to solve this would be for a GPLv2 application distributed in the App Store to have a link to a web page where you can download the source and the binary.
You're almost there. The problem here is that, when user downloads an app from the App Store, Apple is acting as a distributor, and thus GPL terms apply to them. And here's what it has to say on providing source code:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, ...
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
So, even if a GPLv2 an app submitted to the Store includes a link to the source, or an offer to distribute the source on demand made by the original author, Apple cannot merely delegate that link/offer because they redistribute apps commercially (even if the app itself is free, the author still
Re: (Score:2)
Distributing source code that can be compiled into a functioning program you mean?
That's the entire point.
Until phones allow you to compile and run the compiled software (not sure which do and which don't, I assume iPhone doesn't) or there is another way to compile for it with said source code, no, it isn't following the intention (maybe the license as written, uncertain) of GPLv2.
Re: (Score:3)
Course thats for Android phones...
Re: (Score:2)
the incompatibility between the App Store's (and Windows Marketplace's) terms of service on one hand and GPLv2 on the other is a problem in need of a fix.'"
No, the app store model does not need a fix, because it's not inherently incompatible. Source code can still be provided, with download instructions.
What's in need of a fix are the fact that phones are locked down to prevent the user from modifying and installing any application they want, without crypto signing and the manufacturer's approval.
App store providers can fix it if they insert a clause in their license terms requiring the user be allowed to modify, compile, and install any application they want
on their own, without requiring any crypto signatures.
So, anyone can sign up to be an iOS developer [apple.com] for $99 a year, and then test their modified version [apple.com] to their heart's content. They can then do ad hoc distribution [apple.com] to 100 others. That's iOS development in a nutshell.
I'm trying to see how Apple could relax those restrictions without iOS being slammed with malware. If anyone other than Apple can sign an app for general use, iOS will be slammed. If you can sign an app for only your account, it's hardly better than the current situation.
The only realistic way of
Re: (Score:2)
The only realistic way of beating malware is white-listing, and the App Store model is the only realistic way to do white-listing.
Having said that, you could have an oligarchy of white-listers instead of the Apple monarchy. But that's like certificate authorities: all I know when I visit foocorp.com is that it really is the site of Foo Corp. and that they really did shell out $50 for a business license.
Re: (Score:2)
The only realistic way of beating malware is white-listing
No, you just have to design an operating system where beating malware is actually a design goal, rather than an afterthought.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just putting up an arbitrary wall to accessing the platform, and the ad-hoc distributions are time limited.
By making the ability to load unsigned packages a touch more difficult to enable by de
Re: (Score:2)
FALSE.
The GPLv3 states that. GPLv2 only states that you make the source code available.
It's called TiVoization after TiVo, Inc., did that by releasing full source code to the LInux they run, but you cannot run anything you built from that code on an unmo
Re: (Score:2)
The GPLv3 states that. GPLv2 only states that you make the source code available.
FALSE
The GPLv2 states very clearly:
Re: (Score:2)
So, anyone can sign up to be an iOS developer [apple.com] for $99 a year, and then test their modified version [apple.com] to their heart's content.
If Apple modified maters so anyone could be an iOS developer without paying extra to Apple, without contacting Apple,
without signing up or executing another agreement with Apple, then the software could be GPL compliant.
The GPL does not allow additional restrictions to be added to compliant software (for example, a requirement that you contact the software author and ask for permission before you can modify and load modified code, would make the software GPL-incompatible).
Are we talking GPL v2? "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."
What restrictions am *I* placing on the recipients? I'm not charging the fees or requiring they sign up with Apple. People have released software on Mac OS for ages, even though, technically, you have to agree to a EULA to get Xcode.
If we're talking v3, then under section 6, you're installing on an iOS
GPLv2 is not incompatible... (Score:2, Informative)
The issue is not GPLv2 because its wording is silent on the issues that people are claiming incompatibility. GPLv3 is incompatible because it has explicit language which is unfriendly towards commercial use so it can prevent third parties from publishing in the Appstore. Neither GPLv2 or GPLv3 trump the copyright of the author or authors. When all authors agree to distribute on the app store, then there is no problem. The problem arrises when one of the contributors disagrees and exerts their copyright to b
Re: (Score:2)
That's bullshit. While the GPL does not prevent authors from putting it into the Appstore, if Apple can't comply with the GPL terms, Apple can't redistribute the programs. The license to redistribute the code or software is derived from the GPL, not from the party that owns the copyright. Since they presumably chose to offer it under the terms of the GPL.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
This bit here is what's causing the trouble. Apple adds ToS to purchases through the Apple store which covers anything that's sold through
Re: (Score:2)
What about Apache or other license? (Score:2)
Many open source libraries used in iOS development (Score:2)
Actually it's not even incompatible with the GPL as some are claiming, if you read the licenses.
But if you don't want to get into the GPL think many iOS libraries use a variant of the BSD or Apache licenses which are more liberal about use in commercial products without releasing source.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I mis-read what the others were saying. Is that the real problem here? Commercial (for-profit) distribution with added restrictions?
No room for open source in the "app store" model. (Score:2)
Besides with these apps stores are a dead end for open source products. People
Cart before the horse (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why buy devices locked to proprietary standards and licensing? I'd bet a six pack of micro brew the most open market will win the most customers. Android anyone?
Because they work really well, and are extremely reliable and secure. Unlike Android. Last summer I was genuinely of the opinion that my next phone would be an Android. But then I accidentally smashed my iPhone 3 and had to get a replacement right away and got an iPhone 4 (yes, locked in by dependecy on certain apps) so that's put it back a bit. With the recent story about infected apps on the Android Market, I am having second thoughts about switching at all.
Re: (Score:3)
With the recent story about infected apps on the Android Market, I am having second thoughts about switching at all.
I guess FUD works.
You know you could get an Android phone and just not install shady apps.
Incidentally, has someone ported Synaptic or the like to Android yet? It would be incredibly convenient to have an "app store" app which is full of free software. Especially because then you could have repositories run by people you trust who make sure nothing in them is malicious. And get all the advantages of the walled garden, but without the walls -- because hey, if I want to install the app my college buddy wrote,
Re: (Score:2)
not sure if there is anything like synaptic, but it certainly could be done. AFAIK anyone can create a market, several exist.
if there is any real value in the walled garden, anyone could make one for Android and provide a limited experience for those who desired it.
Correction on misquote (Score:2)
Ben franklin is rolling over in his grave now and your misquote. The full quote goes:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety
With the iPhone you are giving up zero liberty since it only ships closed and you can open it if you like and have a need to.
The real problem with your version of the quote is the omission of TEMPORARY. For most users moving to iOS is not a "little temporary safety", it is defacto a safer platform to operate from,
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, forget Ben. I can't say it as simply, but I'll say it in my own words.
"Trading freedom for safety is a bad deal, and I want no part of it. To think that citizens of a county where thousands have died to create and protect our freedom would so easily give up the right to do what they want to do with a device they own in exchange for an illusion of safety created by a company who's only true motive is profit (and rightly so, not blaming them for that part) makes me sick."
-Lod, 2011
Re: (Score:2)
Completely agree. Open source software has been around much longer than these apps stores, and has been usable on practically all if not all general purpose computing platforms prior to the introduction of the app store scheme. Additionally, the world's most popular smartphone platform has shown that it is quite possible to allow GPL software in an app store model, while MS at least has taken steps to specifically forbid it. This is a self imposed limitation for the app store owners, and while it is enti
Re: (Score:2)