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.'"
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.
Don't buy anything that uses such an App store (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem fixed.
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: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:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store (Score:2, Insightful)
Dude, apt-get get is like the mother of all app stores.
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:Limited problem. (Score:1, Insightful)
Apple is against all software they can't control. The GPL encourages tinkering, experimentation, and in some cases forking. Apple is the enemy of the Free Software Foundation, make no mistake. Your freedom cuts into their profits.
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]
Re:Limited problem. (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: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: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.