Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 17th Feb 2011 20:33 UTC, submitted by Radio
Windows Well, well, well. We all know Apple's App Store policies are incompatible with the GPL, and as such, software using this license can't be distributed in the App Store. So, what about Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 Marketplace? Well, whereas the App Store doesn't specifically mention the GPL (Apple's terms are simply incompatible), Microsoft drops the pretence and simply bans GPL and GPL-esque licenses outright.
Thread beginning with comment 462993
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Solution?
by james_parker on Thu 17th Feb 2011 22:07 UTC
james_parker
Member since:
2005-06-29

Why not create a modified license which exempts those who distribute unmodified binaries, provided a mechanism exists for those who receive such binaries to locate and obtain the source code? Then, any binary which provides a way to find a URL for the upstream provider ("help" or "about" options are the logical place for these) could be included under such terms.

It's a legitimate issue for intermediaries (since it adds an additional cost/burden), but one which this would solve with little difficulty.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Solution?
by lemur2 on Thu 17th Feb 2011 22:13 in reply to "Solution?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Why not create a modified license which exempts those who distribute unmodified binaries, provided a mechanism exists for those who receive such binaries to locate and obtain the source code? Then, any binary which provides a way to find a URL for the upstream provider ("help" or "about" options are the logical place for these) could be included under such terms. It's a legitimate issue for intermediaries (since it adds an additional cost/burden), but one which this would solve with little difficulty.


You don't need to modify the GPL v3 at all for that purpose, that is already perfectly acceptable the way the licesne is. The only proviso is that the distributer themselves must make the source code available, and not rely on the upstream provider. However, since the code is unmodified, this merely means Microsoft placing an unmodified copy of the source code on their own servers somewhere.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Solution?
by james_parker on Thu 17th Feb 2011 22:17 in reply to "RE: Solution?"
james_parker Member since:
2005-06-29

The only proviso is that the distributer themselves must make the source code available, and not rely on the upstream provider. However, since the code is unmodified, this merely means Microsoft placing an unmodified copy of the source code on their own servers somewhere.


Which creates an added burden on the distributor -- one that that do not wish to take on. By eliminating that burden from the distributor, the objection is removed, the end user loses nothing, and the provider takes on a slightly larger burden.

If, of course, a distributor finds that unacceptable, then an ulterior motive is almost certainly at play.

Reply Parent Score: 2