Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FSF Asks Apple To Comply With the GPL For Clone of GNU Go

Posted by timothy on from the y'know-fellas-the-license dept.

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."

12 of 482 comments (clear)

  1. Fat Chance by dward90 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Fat Chance by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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!".

    2. Re:Fat Chance by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Fat Chance by kabloom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This sorta gotcha is why GPL developers prefer the GPL.

    4. Re:Fat Chance by Thundersnatch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Fat Chance by Svartalf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    6. Re:Fat Chance by qubezz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  2. I know what I would do. by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  3. The answer is simple. by Stumbles · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:The answer is simple. by GryMor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Realities just a bunch of bits.
  4. Re:what?! no way. by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Normal for the FSF, but not for anyone else. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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