Slashdot Mirror
iPhone SDK and Free Software Don't Match
kookjr writes "Are you planning to develop software for the iPhone? If you want to develop Free Software, Linux.com (Shares corp overlord w/ Slashdot) has a good review of the conflicts between Apple's Registered iPhone Developer Agreement and licenses like the GPL. This is important for people who may not read all the agreements they click Agree to."
companies are issuing SDKs and don't tell you what license is actually compatible in a common sense, non-legalese way?
:)
It seems only logical that this should fall in the 'system requirements' type category of the install documentation...
Sure, when you start your car there is no beeping alarm and a warning sign to use ONLY unleaded gas, but then they go to extra efforts to warn you at the gas fill spot, and make the neck of the gas fill tube so that only unleaded fuel and siphon hoses will fit.
This license thing is like letting you believe you can pour diesel fuel right on in the tank, no worries.
I like car analogies
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
People should really read what they agree to but of course they don't most of the time. Of course, the /. crowd as a whole probably does so far more than most demographics.
/.ers to RTFA (not just this one, but any FA) is any example to go on, then it's a completely hopeless situation...
And if the ability of
This guy's the limit!
It might be considered a surprise considering you can release your software for free (as in beer). But you can't really release the source for free (as in speech) under a GPL.
If want to release "free" software, it's hard to believe you have to do so restrictively.
[The GPL] strives to be the most free.
Not quite. It strives to stay free. Most people consider BSD-licensed code to be more free than GPL-licensed code, simply because there are fewer restrictions.
I'm not commenting on whether "being more free" or "staying free" is "better" (whatever that might mean in this context), simply that there's a difference.
"If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it." --- Arthur Kasspe
I keep getting asked if I'll port SimCity (Micropolis) to the iPhone.
Now I know the answer: NO! Because it's licensed under GPL 3.
It's a lot easier to port software to the Windows CE on the PocketPC, anyway. And then I can give it away for free, instead of charging for it and forking over money to Apple.
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
There are three points of contention:
(1) You must have your application signed before it will run on any cell phone,
(2) Your application must be delivered via the Apple iTunes store, and
(3) Your usage of the beta version of Apple's development kit subjects you to an NDA.
Well, the NDA part of the beta program struck me as a little odd, as it takes about no effort for any idiot to sign up and download the SDK for free--however, this seems to be a standard tactic by Apple for all its beta SDKs. The NDA will be gone, however, by the time the SDK is out of beta--so the whole "you must sign an NDA and that is incompatible with the GPL" thing will be gone by summer.
So what is left is the fact that you have to sign your application before it will run on the iPhone.
As someone who has written cell phone software before, I can tell you that Symbian and Windows Mobile also require application signing before allowing your programs to run on their platforms. It's very common in the cell phone industry to use certificate signing--and at $99/year, Apple is the cheapest to obtain a signing key. Further, from the sounds of it, by the time the SDK goes out of beta, anyone with $99 can get a signing key and sign as many apps as he wishes. (By contrast, for Windows Mobile you pay VeriSign $350 for 10 signing events, meaning you can only sign 10 applications or different versions of the same application. (Actually a signing event means you sign one executable.) Symbian is even more of a pain in the neck. And let's not talk about Android until real Android-based phones start showing up on the market and we learn what sort of package signing requirements the cell phone manufacturers impose on Android applications.
While I appreciate the need for authors to fill column space in order to get paid, it seems to be a little early to start complaining about GPL incompatibility and pointing the fingers solely at Apple because you're too lazy to compare and contrast with the other mobile operating systems out there.
An this is what really matters. Will I go legit when the App store comes out? No. Because jailbreaking offers me the freedom that I have now come to expect.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
The license I choose as an author is binding on everyone else, not me. It's my code, I still own the original copyright, and I can do whatever the hell I want.
There's nothing stopping me from releasing it under the GPL with an exception addendum to account for the iPhone code signing requirements. So if you modify my app and distribute it, you still have to comply with the GPL except for distributing a code signing key to make it work on real hardware.
This