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."
It would ABSOLUTELY be preferable if Apple actually heeded this request. Slashdot wouldn't know what to do if Apple actually made a decision it agreed with. I simply find that prospect to be pretty unlikely.
My other sig is clever.
Several of the iPad frothing at the mouth haters would either have their heads explode, or they would take their own lives...
Either way it would be a net positive for the world.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
Hey, I gave someone a Linux ISO once, does that mean I have to host (or otherwise make directly available from me) the source code for them if they ask me?
As long as the author has the source code available somewhere (which he actually is required to make sure it is), Apple can just point to that.
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!
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.
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
It certainly is a gotcha when a third parties mis-use can leave you, the shop or independent distributor, in the shit. I wonder how long it would take to find Sourceforge in violation of the GPL under this interpretation.