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 427119
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: The questions should be...
by cycoj on Sat 29th May 2010 10:00 UTC in reply to "RE: The questions should be..."
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

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I do not find the GPL offensive at all - I didn't say anything like that. All I'm saying is that I prefer BSD-style licenses because they cause the minimum amount of fuss. I also happen to believe in choice, and part of that belief is tat closed source companies can use your code too.

However, that is entirely a personal choice.

Reply Parent Score: 1

cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04

I do not find the GPL offensive at all - I didn't say anything like that.


Sorry if I wasn't clear I actually didn't mean you with that.


All I'm saying is that I prefer BSD-style licenses because they cause the minimum amount of fuss. I also happen to believe in choice, and part of that belief is that closed source companies can use your code too.

I understand the minimum amount of fuss argument, however I don't get the choice argument. The closed source companies don't give you the choice to use their code.


However, that is entirely a personal choice.


I agree license is a personal choice (of the developer). And I do believe that both BSD and GPL licenses have their uses.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Well, you wrote that you disliked it, which may or may not imply that you find offense with it. Anyways, I don't see the point of being hostile towards a licence since they're just that, licences. If you are angry that code X is licenced under Y, then your beef is really with the code author who chose to licence it as such, and not with the licence itself which is just an agreement.

Reply Parent Score: 2