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.
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.
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.
No. It's because of the App writer's disregard of the GPL in light of said Apple's licensing restrictions.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
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.
What a software license breach and someone doesn't threaten with lawsuits and horse whippings?!
The FSF almost invariably tries to contact companies and take a non-litigious approach first. Their goal is to promote OSS and they can do that a lot better by contacting companies and convincing them to comply and contribute, rather than costing those companies cash out of pocket and making them scared of OSS in future.
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.
Such as?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Wouldn't actually matter. The author's not the one distributing the app, Apple is the distributor. Therefore Apple requires a distribution license. The GPs debates of angels on pinheads notwithstanding, Wal-mart's situation with the router is not something I can comment upon, beyond pointing out it's not an acceptable analogy. Apple is copying the product and distributing those copies. Morally, legally, and in every other way possible, Apple must abide by the license.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
While the source is a problem, the bigger problem is that the GPL states that you're not allowed to prevent people from redistributing the binary. Can you transfer an app from your phone to another one without Apple trying to stop you? No.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
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.
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
The GPL says you have the right to redistribute. It doesn't say that other people have to help you do it. It was a case of having the right to do something (modify the software) but not the ability to benefit from it (by installing a modified version in a Tivo) that pushed the FSF into writing GPLv3.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If you take $99/year to distribute a product which is routinely governed by rules on re-distribution, force a convoluted review process, sell from your storefront, and take a 30% cut of what you're selling, it most certainly is your responsibility to check the origin. Otherwise you've just provided a get-out clause to all fences in history: "How was I supposed to know it was stolen!? He told me he found it washed up on the beach! Would jewelry ever be stolen?"
> 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.
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
Maybe because they didn't write the app, and it's not their responsibility to do so.
It's likely that Apple didn't receive the GPL terms from the developer, and they cannot knowing agree to something unless it's be delivered to them. In short you cannot breach a contract you did not agree to. The actual breach occurred when the developer "distributed" the software to Apple w/o providing a way to fulfill the terms on their own (as required by Apple's contract with the developer. Apple then distributed something that they believed the developer had given them rights to w/o other strings attached. The developer is on the hook for this, not Apple.
I would bet the FSF doesn't want this to actually go to court because they are very likely to lose, despite the feelings of the "I'm a nerd so I know how the law should work, but am not lawyer" crowd on /.
Or am I just not getting something?
Yes - the Apple iPhone SDK rules also specify that if you build anything using it, you cannot distribute it through any means other than the App Store, therefore violating the clause of the GPL that says there can be no other restrictions on distribution (section 6 of the GPL version 2, section 10 of the GPL version 3.)
Yes. Apple doesn't really try to stop anyone, they do strongly advise against it and won't support you if you do it. They certainly don't have to provide you with the tools to do so.
I assure you however, I've copied apps between phones with a simple scp command line.
Apple doesn't have to help you do it or do it for you, they don't even have to make it easy.
From a technical perspective, if someone can solder up a connection to the flash chips and dump it, they've met that particular clause, regardless of how absurd of an idea that may seem.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
And the movies creator also has very little room in the world for DRM.
Both are pushing their agendas on others and both are losing for it in this particular instance.
She's no more 'pushing her agenda' than anyone else is "pushing an agenda" who follows traditional copyright.
According to the law, the rights are granted to the creator, not forced on her.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
No. You seem to be confused. There is no analogy being used. I'm not saying what Apple is doing is analogous to copying, I'm saying it is copying, and that copying is, under copyright law, an exclusive right under copyright (unlike distributing existing copies) and, therefore, unlike distributing existing copies does require a copyright license or an exception to copyright if you aren't the copyright owner.
Yes, it is. Making and distributing electronic copies is the essence of what an internet software, music, etc. distribution service does.
YouTube, because -- unlike Apple's store -- it allows user-submitted content without a preliminary review, benefits from the DMCA safe harbor provision. Apple, by assuming the right to control what content is put into the App Store through an advance review process, doesn't benefit from the DMCA safe harbor and is, consequently, legally responsible for assuring that the content posted doesn't violate copyright.
If it decides to not include sufficient review to determine that in its review process -- something which it could do -- then it accepts the risk that it is exposed to for doing that.
The bits aren't illegal. The act of copying the bits is illegal.