Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 28th May 2010 22:57 UTC, submitted by Panajev
GNU, GPL, Open Source "The Free Software Foundation is up in arms over Apple's iTunes Store Terms of Service, suggesting that these terms fundamentally conflict with the terms of the GNU Public License. The foundation has warned Apple that a version of GNU Go distributed by the App Store makes Apple liable to comply with GPL terms that allow free sharing of code, but warned that its 'Usage Rules' violate those terms. The fallout could potentially affect any app that uses GPLed code."
Thread beginning with comment 427071
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The questions should be...
by mrhasbean on Fri 28th May 2010 23:43 UTC
mrhasbean
Member since:
2006-04-03

Do Apple's terms give them any more control over the CODE for the app?

Do Apple's terms restrict the developer from complying with the requirement that the CODE be made freely available?

These FOSS licences are supposed to be there to keep the CODE freely useable, modifiable and available. If the FSF is restricting distribution of an app for anything other than lack of compliance with those goals they are being more anal than Apple IMHO.

Reply Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

By violating the GPL, Apple is comitting a copyright violation (by violating the GPL, you lose the right to freely distribute the code and binary). I prefer MIT/BSD licenses and dislike the GPL, but Apple must abide by the GPL - if not, they'll have to face legal action.

And that's a case Apple will lose with 100% certainty. Every time the GPL ended up in court, it held up, no matter the jurisdiction.

Edited 2010-05-29 00:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04

By violating the GPL, Apple is comitting a copyright violation (by violating the GPL, you lose the right to freely distribute the code and binary). I prefer MIT/BSD licenses and dislike the GPL, but Apple must abide by the GPL - if not, they'll have to face legal action.


It's interesting you're not a developer so you're not interested in taking a open source product and making it into a closed source product, yet you prefer the license which ensures that you as a user will have more rights. So from what I can tell when prefer BSD over GPL it's purely political, but it's the proponents of the GPL who are always accused of politicising.

Frankly I can't understand why some people have this strong fundamental opposition to the GPL (I'm not saying that you do). If somebody donates something they ask for something in return, i.e. that the money(...) is spend to "do good" (whatever that means to the donor). That is considered perfectly ok, I'd argue very few people would donate money to profit organisations just so they can increase their profit. However if someone creates a software and asks in return that the software (that persons work) remains free (as in speech) then suddenly a lot of people find that offensive.

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE: The questions should be...
by alcibiades on Mon 31st May 2010 09:09 in reply to "The questions should be..."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

The problem is, they are not in compliance with the distribution clauses of the GPL. This is Apple, not the developer, that is out of compliance. That is why all GPL apps will have to be removed from the store in the end.

Look, they have a simple solution to this, if the problem is the lack of GPL applications on the iPad, all they have to do is let people install apps outside of the App Store. Maybe they could let them download them and then run an installer? I wonder if that ever occurred to them, we should point it out.

Reply Parent Score: 2