Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 1st Nov 2010 17:10 UTC
Permalink for comment 448106
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
No it isn't.
The spirit of the GPL license is that when one party (e.g. the App Store) receives the code under GPL terms, if that party wishes to re-distribute the code (as is the very function of the App Store), then downstream recipients must receive the code under the exact same terms and conditions that the first party received it under.
This is only fair, after all. The same rights for everyone, even if they happen to be iPhone or iPad users.
No added restrictions, no extra ifs, buts or maybes.
If the App Store is unable to pass the code on to downstream recipients under the exact same terms and conditions as the App Store received the code, then under the license for that code the App Store has NO permission to pass it on at all.
Under copyright law, a party is required to get permission (in the form of a license) in order to pass on code to downstream recipients. The App Store doesn't have that permission, it has no license.