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."
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.
The more they tighten their grip, the more open source software will slip through their fingers.
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?
They should be going after the author, not Apple. More FSF grandstanding.
Bertrand Serlet: "Steve, we've analyzed their attack, and there is a weakness. Shall I have your shuttle and our crack legal team standing by?" Steve Jobs: "Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances."
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
So your completely anti-copyright then?
I don't know how someone making a copy, and collecting money for it is actually a third party, but I guess they could be.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
The GPL (like any license) can not restrict anybody not knowing a work is under the license - thus the GPL is null and void. Thanks for pointing out that little flaw.