Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th May 2017 23:38 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless

No company has done as much damage to the perceived value of software, and the sustainability of being an independent developer, as Apple.

Not that other companies wouldn't have done the same thing - they would have. It's just that Apple was the successful one.

It's resolutely the fault of us as consumers, and it's actively encouraged by the App Store.

Thread beginning with comment 643830
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: And ban copyleft as well
by daveak on Fri 5th May 2017 17:18 UTC in reply to "And ban copyleft as well"
daveak
Member since:
2008-12-29

Apple don't ban the GPL. The App Store is not compatible with it. The GPL requires the user to be able to recompile the source and produce the same binary. Due to signing this is not possible. Apple therefore are complying with copyright law.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: And ban copyleft as well
by Alfman on Fri 5th May 2017 18:30 in reply to "RE: And ban copyleft as well"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

daveak,

Apple don't ban the GPL. The App Store is not compatible with it. The GPL requires the user to be able to recompile the source and produce the same binary. Due to signing this is not possible. Apple therefore are complying with copyright law.


It's been a while since I've reviewed the terms, but as I recall it has more to do with the fact that apple refused to comply with the source distribution requirements of GPL2: if you distribute binaries you also have to distribute the source. Apple could easily comply with that but they couldn't be bothered to do it and just banned the apps when people asked them to comply. I recall this happening with VLC, but are there other examples?

I did a search, and I found that apple was purging gpl3 software from macos (and probably IOS too).

https://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/03/24/1546205/apple-remove-samba...

GPL3 requires that users not only get the source code but are also extended the right to change the GPL code within their own devices. It came about to combat the tivoization of open source software (provide the source code as required, but hardware will intentionally block user modifications). Unfortunately I think GPL3 was too little too late, and the most significant GPL project (aka linux) does not have a "GPLv2 or later" clause. So there are an awful lot of embedded linux devices today that are "tivoized".

Reply Parent Score: 1