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.'"
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: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)
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: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.