Slashdot Mirror
FSF Asks Apple To Comply With the GPL For Clone of GNU Go
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The Free Software Foundation has discovered that an application currently distributed in Apple's App Store is a port of GNU Go. This makes it a GPL violation, because Apple controls distribution of all such programs through the iTunes Store Terms of Service, which is incompatible with section 6 of the GPLv2. It's an unusual enforcement action, though, because they don't want Apple to just make the app disappear, they want Apple to grant its users the full freedoms offered by the GPL. Accordingly, they haven't sued or sent any legal threats and are instead in talks with Apple about how they can offer their users the GPLed software legally, which is difficult because it's not possible to grant users all the freedoms they're entitled to and still comply with Apple's restrictive licensing terms."
Apple will pull the app from the store LONG before they allow actual open software to slip through their stranglehold on content.
My other sig is clever.
What a software license breach and someone doesn't threaten with lawsuits and horse whippings?! what's this world coming to, it almost sounds like people are being reasonable.
It's an unusual enforcement action, though, because they don't want Apple to just make the app disappear, they want Apple to grant its users the full freedoms offered by the GPL.
Wow, they want Apple to actually follow the license? Bizarre ... what an unusual request! I don't know who wrote the app but if Apple wants to license crap through its stores, it better do the footwork to make sure that it can license what it is licensing. If Apple can't get the source code to the users and Apple was the one who distributed and re-licensed that software then I'd encourage any user with the app to sue for their right to also have access to the source code. Seems like a pretty straight forward license violation to me.
Isn't this like going after Wal-Mart if they sell a router from a company that uses GPL code in the firmware for that router company violating the GPL?
Just an attempt for the FSF to get some PR. Ho-hum.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
If I were Apple, I would just pull the app and call it done. Why bother mucking around with the GPL and the like? Why run the risk of having to deal with demands for access, etc?
Just get rid of the app and make the problem go away.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
They'll make the app disappear and to appease the FSF they'll provide a notice about the app. And possibly a link to the source for awhile.
Restore the madness of youth's lechery
Can't we all pitch in and create some sort of 'B Ark' ala Douglas Adams to ship Earth's GNUFreaks to some other planet?
Nothing about the app store means that you can't freely share the code and load it on your own devices. Nothing legally stops you from jailbreaking the device, and loading on the source yourself.
However, it seems that the argument is that anything that falls under the GPL in binary form must be redistributed without restriction, regardless of the availability of the source code. I'm not so sure on this. It seems to me that if the source code is available freely, than the license terms are fulfilled, but what do I know, I'm not a lawyer...
Would it satisfy the GPL requirements if the source code was made available for free download on another site or does it have to be included with the binary?
This ain't rocket surgery.
They should be going after the author, not Apple. More FSF grandstanding.
From the press release:
The upstream developers for this port are also violating the GPL, and we are discussing this with them too. We are raising the issue with Apple as well since Apple is the one that distributes this software to the public; legally, both parties have the responsibility to comply with the GPL.
They are both responsible, but Apple is the only one that can change their licensing terms to make it legal to release GPL software for the iPhone. Since the FSF would prefer that option over having the application removed from the store, contacting Apple and letting them choose the path forward is the pragmatic and diplomatic thing to do.
It's Gnu Gone in 3,2,1...
For the FSF, at least, that is not unusual at all. Quite the opposite, that is always their goal when approaching violators.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Neither TFS nor TFA make it clear whether the offending application is published by Apple, but it seems that the answer is "no". If so, I fail to see why Apple should be responsible for non-compliance here. Yes, their licensing terms are restrictive, but if some developer didn't realize that they are incompatible with GPL, it's his problem - not Apple's (and not FSF's).
From Apple's perspective, they simply have an application in App Store which is infringing on FSF copyright. I'd imagine that they have some policy against this, so they'll take it down. And, so long as they do it on request, DMCA shields them from liability for distribution. I believe FSF might (oh, the irony!) need to write a proper DMCA take-down request for this, though - until then, Apple can pretty much ignore it if they want (but they probably won't).
If Apple cannot comply with the terms of the GPL then they are first in violation of the GPL terms and second, they are in the copyright violation arena. It is totally immaterial WHY they cannot comply. I am sure if Apple found a program in violation of their terms they would not afford the violator the same kindness they are currently being allowed.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
It seems to me that if the source code is available freely, than the license terms are fulfilled, but what do I know, I'm not a lawyer...
No, no you are not. But this is really something that software developers who plan on reuse should know. From Section 6 of the GPLv2:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
Is Apple redistributing the Program or a derivative thereof? What's more they're relicensing it with a noncompliant license. I think we got a legitimate problem here ... If Apple wants to redistribute, they must provide a license to the consumer telling them how to obtain the source and notifying the consumer that they are free to copy, distribute or modify said Program (of course by the GPLv2 rules).
My work here is dung.
Reality:
In most ways, this is a typical enforcement action for the FSF: we want to resolve this situation as amicably as possible. We have not sued Apple, nor have we sent them any legal demand that they remove the programs from the App Store.
Slashdot:
It's an unusual enforcement action, though, because they don't want Apple to just make the app disappear, they want Apple to grant its users the full freedoms offered by the GPL.
Just goes to show you the amazing lengths spoiled children will go to to get momma to give them another cookie! If they can't comply with the license it should be pulled and should never have been allowed in in the first place.
Why bother
The real question is, will they Kill Switch the app for those who have already downloaded it?
That'd be a woefully ironic way of responding to the FSF's concerns about user's rights. "Oh, sorry, FSF. Just to show you how sorry we are, we'll remotely disable all copies of that app. That way, nobody will be left with a copy of the app that doesn't fully comply with the GPL terms. All better?"
I think it's less a question of the source code for the app needing to be available than it is that Apple wraps the app up in a container. Think of it like a filet mignon, a nice piece of steak wrapped up with a nasty greasy piece of bacon. The cow didn't put the pork into the steak, the restaurant did. I think the issue is that because Apple wrapped the app up in a sealed non-GPL compliant container, and then distributed it through the app store, without source code for the wrapper, they are the ones in violation of the GPL. Since the complete app is GPL code + Apple Wrapper, and since Apple is the one that adds the wrapper and sells the application...
Is Apple redistributing the Program or a derivative thereof? What's more they're relicensing it with a noncompliant license. I think we got a legitimate problem here ... If Apple wants to redistribute, they must provide a license to the consumer telling them how to obtain the source and notifying the consumer that they are free to copy, distribute or modify said Program (of course by the GPLv2 rules).
As an app store developer, I can tell you Apple lets the developer supply the license, and it's embedded in the app store for your product.
Because the developer supplies the license for the app store, this is really the developers issue again.
The EFF details some ways that suggest to me that Apple will never be able to be in compliance with the GPL under their current terms and conditions. For example: GPLv2, Section 6:
From EFF's dissection of Apple's Agreement:
I am not a lawyer, but I would say that together these mean that Apple is in violation of the GPL if it distributes GPL code through its app store; it either needs to waive those terms in 7.2 (hah!) or outright ban GPL'ed code in the app store.
The GPLv2 section 6 states
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
The iTunes Store Terms of Service section 10b states:
b. Use of Products. You acknowledge that Products (other than the iTunes Plus Products) contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following applicable Usage Rules, and, whether or not Products are limited by security technology, you agree to use Products in compliance with the applicable Usage Rules.
Usage Rules ...
(i) Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement.
(ii) You shall be authorized to use the Products only for personal, noncommercial use.
(iii) You shall be authorized to use the Products on five Apple-authorized devices at any time, except in the case of Movie Rentals, as described below.
Therefore distributing through the iTunes Store adds restrictions on use that are prohibited by the GPL.
Apple or the people that published it in the store?
I vote the people.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I have no problem with the FSF having a goal of keeping source code "free" but I do have a problem with license which attempt to "steal" or encumber the rights of other people.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
The producer of the full-length, animated movie "Sita Sings the Blues" recently found herself in a similar situation.
She had an eye-opening experience when she went to license the music in the movie (from the 1920s) and found out that it cost $50K for the rights and another $20K for the lawyers to do the clearance work - for recordings that are in the public domain (but the lyrics are not).
Because of that she decided to release the movie under the Creative Commons Share-Alike license - which, I believe, is the version most like the GPL(and she also took out a loan for the music rights). The movie has been very popular, Roger Ebert raved about it, even the guys on his old TV show (now called "At the Movies") gave it high marks. So eventually Netflix came a-calling, they offered her something like $7K up front for the right to stream the movie. However, she insisted that they stream it without DRM and their system is just not set up to do that, it's like they never conceived of the idea of Free content when they designed it. Kinda ironic in retrospect because I'd be really surprised if, just like most of the interwebs, a whole lot of netflix's infrastructure didn't run on Free software,
Anyway, she was willing to compromise - she would grant an exception to the licensing terms and they could DRM it, if they would run a placard at the start of the movie telling viewers that it was Free and where to get it from. No dice said Netflix. So she no dice too.
So, my bet is that Apple goes the same way as netflix - unwilling to compromise because their world view has no room in it for Free software for regular users.
BTW:
Sita Sings the Blues - main site
Download page - including bittorrent of a very nice 4GB 1080p mkv, also streaming from Youtube, etc
IMDB Page
Ebert's review
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The problem is that the terms of service that you agree to when you use the app store places restrictions on how you use the application that are in conflict with the GPL: details. Thus Apple is violating the terms of service when they distribute the application, in a manner that cannot be resolved externally.
This will probably lead to apple pulling the app, then banning any subsequent GPL apps from the app-store. As far as this not undoing the past infringement; I'd expect them to take a 'see you in court' attitude.
It's normal for the FSF, but abnormal in the litigation-happy world of copyright law.
Do you think that the RIAA is in the habit of asking nicely? Or the MPAA? Or maybe we should compare this to the bad blood of Viacom v. YouTube?
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property
Bingo. If there's an incompatibility between Apple's license and the GPL, then the fault is that of the developer who made the port - he's the one who gave license to Apple to sell the game on his behalf under Apple's terms. If he didn't have the right to make that deal with Apple, he's the one who's at fault here.
17 USC 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
17 USC 501. Infringement of copyright
(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A (a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be.
----
Your analysis is 100% incorrect. Apple is in violation of the copyright.
Apple, or B&N as in your example, may may a contractual or common law right to indemnification from the upstream publisher, but distributing copyrighted items without permission is a violation of copyright.
> What's preventing the developers from posting source on their web site like the other GPL apps on the app store?
It's not about the source (though I can't remember if there's another restriction where Apple prevents even that). It's about the downstream users losing their right to redistribute the iPhone application due to restrictions in the iTunes ToS. See section 7.2, for example, which says that the app can only be distributed by Apple.
Can't do that with OSS. Can't take away people's right to redistribute.
I think you need to reread the GPL.
Doesn't mean it's Apple's fault, but the distributor is responsible for ensuring that the source is available. IIRC (I've never tested the boundary, so I don't remember it clearly) *EITHER* you distribute the source with each binary copy, or you must ensure that the source is available to anyone who desires it for seven years. The answer I've always found easiest is to just distribute the source with every binary.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Apple's developer agreement is in direction opposition to the GPL, so why shouldn't the FSF, which works to spread libre software, use this as a pretext for discussing the issue with Apple? Sure, Apple will probably ignore them, since Apple has absolutely no interest in the sort of user freedom the FSF is pushing, but at least they have a reason to contact Apple in this case.
If you RTFA, you will notice the FSF has contacted the person responsible for putting the offending application in the apps store.
Palm trees and 8
No license can impose additional restrictions on third parties other than developers taking the code and distributing a binary.
Not true. From a legal point of view copyright law gives the copyright holder the exclusive right to distribute a work in any form. You must have permission to distribute the work, and if you are distributing the work in violation to the license, then you are infringing.
The GPL does not apply to Apple anymore than it would apply to Walmart.
In fact if Walmart sells a book that violates copyright they can be sued. In practice since it wasn't willful infringement the most likely outcome is that the judge will issue an injunction forcing them to stop distribution, but they won't have to pay any damages. The infringing publisher/author will get hit with the willful infringement charges.
From a practical point of view, the FSF doesn't want the iPhone app to stop being distributed, they want the it to be distributed in a manner that satisfies the GPL. Since Apple is the only one who can chose to modify or make an exemption to their term of service to allow this, it makes since to contact them in addition to the app's author, which is what is happening.
Don't they already distributes GPL'd code on apple.com - why can't they just make source code available the same way they do for what they distribute? They've been doing it a while so however it is handled must not have ruffled the FSF's feathers so, to paraphrase an email "GPL. No big deal."
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Except that the users do not have the freedom to exercise their rights under the GPL, which include being able to redistribute modified versions of the software without limits or royalty payments. For a user of this application to modify it and redistribute the modified version to an unlimited number of persons, they would have to pay the developer fee that Apple demands, which at the very least is not in keeping with the spirit of the GPL, and may very well be a violation in and of itself.
Palm trees and 8
The GPL is a license to use someone else's code free of charge, but with requirements on how you are allowed to use it, to maintain the community and ecosystem of freely available software. It doesn't "steal" or encumber anyone else's rights, or attempt to usurp the copyrights of 3rd parties.
If you violate the GPL and are caught, you will be required to come into compliance with the GPL in the method of your choosing, which can include stopping distributing your code that also contains GPLed code. The SFLC, FSF, or courts will not be able to terminate or alter the rights of third party code based on it at one time being included with GPL code.
If you don't own all the code that creates your application, or can't obtain a compatible license, plain and simple don't reuse others GPLed code, write it yourself. There is nothing in the GPL that should or can be struck down. It's all about whether the user of the GPL license used it correctly and legally. There exists a version specifically addressing your concern, and it is called the LGPL. Ask the author of that code to move it to LGPL if s/he can.
Except that the users do not have the freedom to exercise their rights under the GPL, which include being able to redistribute modified versions of the software without limits or royalty payments. For a user of this application to modify it and redistribute the modified version to an unlimited number of persons, they would have to pay the developer fee that Apple demands, which at the very least is not in keeping with the spirit of the GPL, and may very well be a violation in and of itself.
Not entirely true. For distribution, they can jailbreak, which is warrantee voiding, but legal, and can be done by anyone who owns an iDevice.
Modification does not require a fee.
Except that by obtaining the software through the apps store, they are agreeing to a license that stipulates that they can only use the software on a limited number of approved devices. That screams "GPL violation," although my understanding of the law might not be complete enough to make that assertion; at the very least, it is completely opposed to the spirit of the GPL.
Palm trees and 8
Claiming that distribution sites are responsible for content posted by third parties is a tactic used by the RIAA and MPAA and their ilk.
The FSF should be better than to do this.
This is the fault of whoever submitted the app, not Apple.
FSF, Shame on you!
Link to full article on EFF
Probably not since, given the doctrine of first sale, Best Buy doesn't need a copyright license to distribute a physical copy they have purchased in good faith from a vendor, so they don't need the GPL's permission to sell their copy.
Apple, OTOH, is transmitting a new digital copy to each purchaser, which does require either a legal privilege that trumps copyright (e.g., fair use, which pretty clearly doesn't apply here) or permission from the copyright holder. Insofar as the FSF is the holder of copyright in material included in an app on the App Store, and licenses it only under the GPL, the GPL is the only basis on which Apple can claim to have the required permission.
Just goes to show you the amazing lengths spoiled children will go to to get momma to give them another cookie! If they can't comply with the license it should be pulled and should never have been allowed in in the first place.
You totally lost me with your cookie analogy. Perhaps an analogy involving cars might work better?
I don't think anyone really expected this issue to be resolved in any way other than the removal of the app in question from the iTunes store. But even if something you hope for is unrealistic, there's nothing wrong with asking, you know? It's a long shot if you do ask, but it's a 0% chance if you don't ask.
Bow-ties are cool.
Then explain the WRT54g and Android phones why the kernel source isn't in the box?
Please use each word correctly. A clone would be a rewrite of some app with similar functionality. A port is a change to an existing source base allowing it to run on another platform. A very important distinction when it comes to copyright stuff.
no, copyright law doesn't work that way: apple (as well as the developer) is still in violation of copyright law and can be sued
A zip file is not an "object" that the retail vendor receives from a supplier. It is a copy that the vendor creates of information that they are provided by a supplier.
Insofar as the information is covered by copyright law, producing the copy requires permission of the copyright holder (or an express exception to copyright, like fair use) -- hence the name "copyright" which consist primarily of the legal right to make copies -- this is different from the distribution of original physical objects that you have received from a supplier, which need no such license (as is made clear by the doctrine of first sale.)
my money is on the app just "getting pulled." we're talking about a company that controlled the means of production, distribution, and development for an entire generation of computers and now seeks to do nearly the same with their modern generation of appliances and marketplace. The marketplace is too delicate and too critical to let some movement or politics get in the way, so the quickest means to shut this concern down here is to simple remove the app and pretend this never happened.
I also wouldnt be surprised if apple decided to resurrect one of their classic 2GS series versions of 'go' for the marketplace.
on the developers side would it piss me off to have my cool app pulled for something like this? sure, and hey if i were pissed enough its not like i couldnt show the droid community a really cool version of go.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Anyone who mocks "Intellectual Property" as "Imaginary Property" while supporting the GPL must be completely clueless.
The GPL benefits from the concept of "Intellectual Property" just as much as any other license. If you don't think that "Intellectual Property" is a valid concept, fine (although you've probably never created anything that someone else would want to put their name on), but it's inconsistent to be anti-Intellectual Property and pro-GPL.
"We don't do OSS".
Yes, according to both a close reading of the license, and the FSF's FAQ. In fact, according to a close reading of the license, you were probably in technical violation of the license as soon as you handed out the copy without a written offer of source.
It has to be "made available", it does not have to be in the physical box. It can be made available on a web site somewhere.
Also, there is absolutely no problem with running proprietary apps or drivers on an Open Source system, as long as those apps or drivers do not make any direct use of Open Source code. Parts of Android are, I believe, proprietary, and that's fine.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Quite right, the FSF has a history of contacting people first and silently arranging compliance.
Actually the Free Software Foundation's goals have nothing to do with "OSS" (open source software) and should not be confused with that movement's goals. The FSF predates the open source movement, the Open Source Initiative, and the FSF is appropriately critical of the open source movement's goals. People from the FSF (most notably Richard Stallman) are the principal authors of the GPLs, and Stallman makes a sharp distinction between the free software movement (which he founded) and the open source movement. You can find clear descriptions of that difference and practical consequences of that difference in almost any of his talks online or the essay I linked to.
Digital Citizen
uses GnuGo, an open source game engine. Source code is available.
And on the fucking App Store page, it even says where: http://www.gnu.org/software/gnugo/. So where is the problem?
I'd just post the source code ( with the iPhone specific code ) on a website, and note it in the App to make it compliant.
The set of people who would use the source code and know how to compile it in X code, or even bother and jailbreak their phone is probably pretty miniscule vs people who would just buy the dang thing for $0.99.
Per the TFA, they did NOT send a C&D letter or any other legal demand.
They WANT Apple to keep distriuting it.
We're back to "abnormal for anyone but them," I think.
- IDBIIP
Upon reflection, if it was a paid app, Apple would refund the entirety of the purchasers' money to them and not turn over any proceeds to the copyright holder or the FSF. I regret that I didn't think that through prior to posting.
While I entirely agree with your point, I'm utterly amazed you haven't been moderated into oblivion yet with 200 'shut up you apple apologist!!@$!@$!' replies.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Their Censorship of the App store makes them responsible for the content. They cannot say "We control everything that gets sold, but we're not responsible for it." BIG grey area, IMHO. Plenty of legal wiggle room for both the developer and apple to get screwed. Whether or not the FSF will sue an individual or corporation or both is up to them.
nope, apple distributed(sent from apple server to device) the binary, they provide that info to the user, and must not restrict the users use of the binary any further or in ways that violate the GPL.
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
Why don't you go and troll somewhere else? Fucking fanbois and their bullshit.
I wonder how much knowledge the FSF has of the situation. Are they acting on their own, or is one of the authors involved? Who submitted the App? If it was the "authors" they are in their right to dual license their code. There can be a GPL and non-GPL version. The non-GPL version doesn't suddenly become GPLed. Based on their letter, this seems like an evangelical rant against Apple.
"We believe that people should be allowed to use their computers however they like, whether the devices are shaped like laptops, cell phones, or tablets."
If the FSF believes in freedom, shouldn't I have the freedom to steal their code without attribution? Copyright gives the GPL teeth and it should be respected. Just like authors should have freedom over their works, hardware vendors should have freedom over their platforms, regardless of what others think is right. Apple will pull the App and have no liability. I question what motives the FSF had in this.
Aww, how cute, look at the two apple-users sucking each other off.
Fuck the both of you. This is not about who did what or who is responsible. It's bigger than that. Some things are more important than the facts, and this is one of them. This is about freedom, whether you like it or not. One day when you grow up and start using real computers with real software you'll understand.
You have to be joking. Are they really claiming that because the app store is locked down, someone can't actually run a recompiled version, that they are violating the GPL? There is nothing stopping you getting the same hardware as an iphone, coding a compatible OS and running it on that hardware.
The FSF are appauling in the way they stretch every little term and word. This is even worse than the last GPL topic that claimed that the person had to provide the compiler, IDE, toolchain etc....
Claiming that distribution sites are responsible for content posted by third parties is a tactic used by the RIAA and MPAA and their ilk.
But the stuff on the App Store isn't "posted by third parties" - its posted by Apple, after being vetted and approved by Apple and the money is collected by Apple. Apple are running the stall - the problem with MAFIAA is when they go after the guy who just owns the table.
Its the difference between a newspaper accepting classified ads for cars, and a newspaper starting its own car dealership.
Now, that's a fine line with ISPs and (particularly) torrent-finder sites (some of which were plainly positiond as tools for illegal copying, others were not) but Apple sit very clearly on the "responsible" side of it.
This point seems to be lost on people who protest about the "freedom" of the App store: Apple are first in the firing line for any problems with the App, and they're a big fat litigation/negative publicity target.
Plus, it sounds like FSF has just informed Apple that they are infringing. They haven't made them a generous "settlement" offer under threat of legal action.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Then explain the WRT54g and Android phones why the kernel source isn't in the box?
I recently bought a Netgear ADSL modem. In the box there was a piece of paper informing me of how to obtain the source code for the Free software used in the modem firmware. This constitutes a "written offer to supply the corresponding source" and thus it complied.
I recently bought a Nokia N900 mobile phone. In the box... etc.
Pirate Party UK
Change Plaintiff to RIAA:
RIAA: They shared 24 Songs!
Jammie: I've stopped!
RIAA: Pay use one hundred billion dollars!
Judge: Yup, go and do that, Jammie or I'll chuck you in jail!
Apple IS doing something: adding an EULA. And the GPL which covers the binary in the same way as the Apple copyright on source code covers their Operating System, doesn't allow someone to do that.
And who was it again to have said Microsoft was evil and Apple good?
Non-supporter of Online Activation and any other draconian DRM
Not so much.. you are trying to say that by exercising whatever "policing" an ISP may do for objectionable content (even if its only malware/phishing sites) on its network, that now the ISP/Hosting company is responsible for making copies/providing all support for GPL code on the internet?
Please think before you type, then read the license a few times, and then goto the FSF website and read their take on the GPL and how it applies to various entities.. then come back and post again
Not so much.. you are trying to say that by exercising whatever "policing" an ISP may do for objectionable content (even if its only malware/phishing sites) on its network
Apple doesn't "police" the App Store for abuse: they individually evaluate and approve each App on a whole raft of content and quality issues before they upload it. They enter into a licensing agreement with the author and, in many cases, collect money from custmers, keeping a wodge for themselves. That's very different from an ISP or public FTP server acting as a "common carrier" and deleting offending material as and when they discover it. Apple are actively distributing software, they're responsible, and its up to them to make sure they have the correct permissions and/or get the author to indemnify them.
and then goto the FSF website and read their take on the GPL
OK.
From the GNU FAQ:
The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you received a written offer for source code is quite limited.
What exception? From the GPLv2
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
(snip)
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
So, if Apple distribute the binary, Apple are responsible for distributing the source - unless you think the Apple App Store is "noncommercial".
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Apple has already pulled it! ;)
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
I do respect Open Office and have used it at certain times in my life, but for school reports, Open Office did not have the TOC
OpenWriter Window : "Insert" -> "Indexes and Tables" ->"Indexes and Tables..."
Insert Table/Index Window: "Index/Table" tab -> "Type" dropdown -> "Table of Content" (selected by default)
Then just use the correct styles ("Title 1", "Title 2", etc...) when writing and the table will auto-magically work.
You have a couple of default layouts. Then, if you want you can customise it by editing style and selecting them (which *show up as entry* in the index, as well as which *are used to write* the index).
The only difference, it that you can't directly edit or write the index, it's a read-only object, that you manipulate through styles (but I find that behaviour more logical to the one I've seen in the last version of Word I've tested).
TOF
Same window (... ->"Indexes and Tables...") ... -> "Illustration Index" (depending on what you need to achieve)
Insert Table/Index Window: "Index/Table" tab -> "Type" dropdown -> "Table of Objects"
or
(Illustration is for pictures-only, Object is for pretty much anything embeded)
Same customisations as with other tables.
page numbering
"Insert" -> "Header" or ... -> "Footer". ... and other fields, to your liking.
Then
"Insert" -> "Fields" -> "Page number"
You can have separate left/right right pages by editing Page's style if you want :
- The "Default" style has a single layout.
- For more elaborate solution you could use "First page" (no header/footer) for your title, then "Left page" and "Right page" set up to chain to each other in an alternate manner. Each with page number on the outer lower corner, title in top left on left page, author name on top-right on right page.
section break
"Insert" -> and either "Manual break" or "Section" depending on what you want to achieve.
formatting options that worked well enough for those reports.
I don't really see what wasn't "well enough" for you.
For me this basic level of formating turned out to be more than enough through university for myself and my brother.
Not only that, but it came with a varied array of advantages: 100% gratis (whereas even the most recent arrangement with Microsoft only covers MSO for employees like teaching-assistants), 100% open, with an embed PDF exporter since ages (MSO didn't have one back then), and using an open format which could easily be implemented by other software and turned later as an ISO-approved open standard (as opposed to Microsoft's offering whose latest iteration still isn't 100% compatible with their own ECMA-approved standard).
The only point where I find OOo lacking is that the grammar module is an external java plugin, and doesn't support yet the "as-you-type-squiggly-line" correction as the spell-checker does.
If you really want something more powerful, maybe you should get time to investigate some "What You See Is What You Mean" editor that separates structure/content from appearance/layout, like the LaTeX based LyX. This isn't such a big jump if you've correctly learned to use "styles" when formatting your documents.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Wait, whose licensing terms are restricting whom here? I don't have a pony in this race, but I think it's at least worth asking.
Your again reading too much into the distribution entity, which is legally the person who created and allows to be distributed the code, NOT the physical means of distribution.
/movies/books which are all direct copies of works, which may or may not contain copyright violations.. and are as a general rule created by 3rd parties (or 4th parties in the case of dvds, or better still streaming/downloadable content with drm)
The "distributor" of the binary, is the person who does the initial distribution NOT the actual place you downloaded said code/binary from.
Until you realize/recognize/understand who the various terms apply to and how, this argument will go on forever. LEGALLY in this case ITUNES is exactly the same as walmart, bestbuy, ingram micro, or any other retailer/distributor of physical devices. We can argue about the basic incompatibility of the IPHONE/IPOD/IPAD SDK- the itunes connect agreement (for distribution of apps created with the sdk) and the Itunes end user license.. but they are not related to the issue that everyone here seems to be jumping on related to distribution..
As much as everyone here likes to bitch and moan about itunes "approval" of apps, trust me.. the very same thing happens at EVERY single retailer in the world.. or every store everywhere would sell every product. Picking and choosing what you sell, is in no way "accepting liability" for what a vendor you buy from does or doesn't do with regards to copyright.
If you want to think things through logically, the GPL and the various apple licenses (sdk for idevices in this case + others on the apple side) ARE INCOMPATIBLE.. in short before there was a distribution issue, there was a violation of the SDK terms by an attempt to combine incompatible code in an illegal manner by the person who took the original GPL code and created a derivative work using apple's code in the SDK..
In short apple was the victim of the developer who tried to cheat the 2 licenses together, before any sort of infringement in distribution could have happened. And even that implies that somehow "apple" acting as itunes is a distributor under the license which they are not, any moreso than there is legal standing versus sourceforge, or any number of websites hosting open source projects and creating copies of same.. the only remedy under the license is to "remove the offending code" when it is brought to their attention.
In short dreaming and hoping and praying is not gonna change the license to say stuff that it does not say, or somehow create liability where none exists. The day that retailers are involved in copyright violations by vendors, will be new case law, and is not likely to suddenly appear now, after more than 200 years of long established precedence when dealing with this sort of thing.
Again, if you cannot wrap your head around the fact that "physical objects" such as routers, tv's, cellphones, and the like are not copies under the license.. then compare instead to the established laws relating to music
If an author/director/movie studio makes a copyright infringing work, there is *no* legal wrongdoing on the part of the distribution/manufacturing 3rd parties or even first party who do the copying.. as the infringement was done in the compilation of the original work. The only time copyright is applied to the finished material as a copy.. is in regards to other entity (such as a website/pirate who sells dvd in hongkong/malaysia) who copies the entire work without permission from its author and resells it.. AND EVEN THEN the pirate is only liable for copying the compilation, not for any root violations such as not licensed music or images used in the work)
In short.. if i use the latest pop songs in my movie, and do not get the rights to use them.. i am the violator of copyright.. (the legal entity that owns the work that violates).. if the movie is then copied 40,000 times for distribution to movie theaters worldwide.. the film that the 3rd part
Solution: It would be easy enough for the app to contain it's own emailable embedded project .
This would make it GPL compliant by providing an easy means for the app to distribute it's own source code.
This is what AppDNA does for OSX.
http://habilis.net/appdna/
-Jean Mac developer since 1986