Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 1st Nov 2010 17:10 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 448114
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
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
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-06-09
I appreciate Apple's store in unpopular in certain quarters, for a host of reasons, but I genuinely dont see where its restrictions are relevant to the aims of GPL licence.
It is relevant because there are restrictions which aren't in the GPL license.
The code doesn't belong to the App Store.
The only way that the App Store has required-by-law permission to distribute the code (that isn't theirs) is to abide by the GPL license. That means adding no extra restrictions (whatever they are). None at all. As soon as the App Store adds extra restrictions, they violate the terms of the GPL, and as a consequence they have no permission to distribute the code.
Distributing someone else's code without permission is a violation of copyright law. "
It seems that you don't understand the GPL v2, not surprising. There aren't any extra restrictions, except those that exist in your imagination.