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."

Comments

Fat Chance

[dward90]

Apple will pull the app from the store LONG before they allow actual open software to slip through their stranglehold on content.

Re:Fat Chance

[WrongSizeGlass]

Very true. FSF should know better to say "Hey, you can't do that ... so why don't you start opening up your distribution practices rather than pull the app in question". They just fingered that app and it will be out in the cold before you can say "Oops!".

Re:Fat Chance

[TheRaven64]

Well, not exactly. The GPL is a distribution license. Without it, you may not copy the work at all, as per copyright law. That means that everyone in an electronic distribution chain must comply with the GPL, because each one is making a copy. Apple is making a copy of a copyrighted work every time that someone downloads something from the store.

There is almost certainly a clause in the developer agreement saying that you will indemnify Apple against legal costs caused by distributing your app, but this is where it gets interesting. If Apple has distributed something derived from GPL'd code, without complying with the terms of the GPL, then they are liable for copyright infringement (for profit, potential large statutory fine). They could then recoup this cost by suing the developer, but I imagine that the developer probably can't afford the fine and that the amount of bad press it would generate for Apple in the developer community would make it not worth their while.

Re:Fat Chance

[kabloom]

This sorta gotcha is why GPL developers prefer the GPL.

Re:Fat Chance

[Thundersnatch]

They could provide the source code by any means they wished. Why would they have to provide it "through the App store"? Read the license.

Re:Fat Chance

[Svartalf]

Ah... The problem is...the store's just as obligated as the developer. They distributed it. The GPL is a derivative works and publication/distribution license on whatever is protected by it.

By selling the app, they're in a pickle. Much like Verizon was with the Actiontec routers with BusyBox in them that was just as non-compliant.

Re:Fat Chance

[Tetsujin]

This says it all:

bukkit:~ bunky$ curl -s http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt |wc -l
    339

bukkit:~ bunky$ cat new_bsd_license.txt |wc -l
      8

The consequences, I'm afraid, of writing a legal document, if you want it to accomplish anything at all.

Re:Fat Chance

[qubezz]

This sorta gotcha is why GPL developers prefer the GPL.

It is also why Apple developers prefer the BSD license - they can charge for a cut-and-paste of something that is free/free.

It is ironic how Berkeley students and faculty are now paying Apple to use code their institution gave to the world for free - and only because they made it too free.

I know what I would do.

[DaveV1.0]

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.

Re:I know what I would do.

[UnknowingFool]

Do you really think that they should be able to get away with copyright infringement via a contract that does not involving the rights holder?

Huh? The first part quoted says in legalese the the developer affirms that the submitted code is owned or controlled by the developer and that the distribution of the code does not violate the rights of any third party. The second part covers FOSS software namely that the developer will not do what he/she did in this particular case. That does get Apple off the hook. It's basic contract law.

As an analogy, suppose you sell me a car but I don't have all the money. Under the sales agreement I provide you with a monthly payment until the full amount is settled. Then later I found out you stole the car. The agreement is void as you didn't have rights to sell the car. I don't have to pay you any monthly payment and if I am not obligated to return the car to you if I return the car to the local authorities. Can I be charged by the police with stolen property? No, because I believe you were the rightful owner and I complied with the law on stolen property.

The answer is simple.

[Stumbles]

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.

Re:The answer is simple.

[GryMor]

No Apple app store app can, currently, be in compliance with the GPL. This is about Clause 6, which requires you to allow redistribution of any GPL app, as is (something that apple prevents via license and technical measures) and has nothing to do with source code.

Re:what?! no way.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Re:Wrong People

[squiggleslash]

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.

Re:GPL Question

[radish]

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.

From the Fine Article

[watanabe]

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:

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.

From EFF's dissection of Apple's Agreement:

Section 7.2 makes it clear that any applications developed using Apple's SDK may only be publicly distributed through the App Store, and that Apple can reject an app for any reason, even if it meets all the formal requirements disclosed by Apple. So if you use the SDK and your app is rejected by Apple, you're prohibited from distributing it through competing app stores like Cydia or Rock Your Phone.

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.

Normal for the FSF, but not for anyone else.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:GPL Question

[david_thornley]

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.