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.
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.
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, because Apple is the problem. If Wal-Mart didn't let the router company include a source CD with the router, you'd go after Wal-Mart along with the router company. The developers of this app I have little doubt want to comply with the GPL but Apple won't let them, a bit like Wal-Mart prohibiting the inclusion of source code.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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...
O RLY?
What's preventing the developers from posting source on their web site like the other GPL apps on the app store?
Nothing about the app store means that you can't freely share the code and load it on your own devices. Nothing legally stops you from jailbreaking the device, and loading on the source yourself.
However, it seems that the argument is that anything that falls under the GPL in binary form must be redistributed without restriction, regardless of the availability of the source code. I'm not so sure on this. 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...
They should be going after the author, not Apple. More FSF grandstanding.
From the press release:
The upstream developers for this port are also violating the GPL, and we are discussing this with them too. We are raising the issue with Apple as well since Apple is the one that distributes this software to the public; legally, both parties have the responsibility to comply with the GPL.
They are both responsible, but Apple is the only one that can change their licensing terms to make it legal to release GPL software for the iPhone. Since the FSF would prefer that option over having the application removed from the store, contacting Apple and letting them choose the path forward is the pragmatic and diplomatic thing to do.
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.
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.
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.
Reality:
In most ways, this is a typical enforcement action for the FSF: we want to resolve this situation as amicably as possible. We have not sued Apple, nor have we sent them any legal demand that they remove the programs from the App Store.
Slashdot:
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.
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"
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).
As an app store developer, I can tell you Apple lets the developer supply the license, and it's embedded in the app store for your product.
Because the developer supplies the license for the app store, this is really the developers issue again.
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.
Apple store apps transfer from device to device. I can also delete the app and download it again as often as I like.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
The GPLv2 section 6 states
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.
The iTunes Store Terms of Service section 10b states:
b. Use of Products. You acknowledge that Products (other than the iTunes Plus Products) contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following applicable Usage Rules, and, whether or not Products are limited by security technology, you agree to use Products in compliance with the applicable Usage Rules.
Usage Rules ...
(i) Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement.
(ii) You shall be authorized to use the Products only for personal, noncommercial use.
(iii) You shall be authorized to use the Products on five Apple-authorized devices at any time, except in the case of Movie Rentals, as described below.
Therefore distributing through the iTunes Store adds restrictions on use that are prohibited by the GPL.
The producer of the full-length, animated movie "Sita Sings the Blues" recently found herself in a similar situation.
She had an eye-opening experience when she went to license the music in the movie (from the 1920s) and found out that it cost $50K for the rights and another $20K for the lawyers to do the clearance work - for recordings that are in the public domain (but the lyrics are not).
Because of that she decided to release the movie under the Creative Commons Share-Alike license - which, I believe, is the version most like the GPL(and she also took out a loan for the music rights). The movie has been very popular, Roger Ebert raved about it, even the guys on his old TV show (now called "At the Movies") gave it high marks. So eventually Netflix came a-calling, they offered her something like $7K up front for the right to stream the movie. However, she insisted that they stream it without DRM and their system is just not set up to do that, it's like they never conceived of the idea of Free content when they designed it. Kinda ironic in retrospect because I'd be really surprised if, just like most of the interwebs, a whole lot of netflix's infrastructure didn't run on Free software,
Anyway, she was willing to compromise - she would grant an exception to the licensing terms and they could DRM it, if they would run a placard at the start of the movie telling viewers that it was Free and where to get it from. No dice said Netflix. So she no dice too.
So, my bet is that Apple goes the same way as netflix - unwilling to compromise because their world view has no room in it for Free software for regular users.
BTW:
Sita Sings the Blues - main site
Download page - including bittorrent of a very nice 4GB 1080p mkv, also streaming from Youtube, etc
IMDB Page
Ebert's review
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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.
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
What?
Let's look at the situation in a little more detail instead of handwaving it away.
Apple distributes something (a zip file) which includes an App licensed under the GPL written by an Author who provides said zip file to Apple to distribute.
Walmart distributes something (a router) which includes an App (Linux kernel) licensed under the GPL produced by an company (Linksys) who provides said router to Apple to distribute.
To me: A store sells an object licensed under the GPL produced by another party.
So.... how's Walmart not an acceptable analogy?
If you're going to tell me that Apple's going to need to provide me the GPL code from a third party, how do I request Newegg, Buy.com, Walmart, and Fry's Electronics to provide me the kernel source from a WRT54g?
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
Link to full article on EFF
Probably not since, given the doctrine of first sale, Best Buy doesn't need a copyright license to distribute a physical copy they have purchased in good faith from a vendor, so they don't need the GPL's permission to sell their copy.
Apple, OTOH, is transmitting a new digital copy to each purchaser, which does require either a legal privilege that trumps copyright (e.g., fair use, which pretty clearly doesn't apply here) or permission from the copyright holder. Insofar as the FSF is the holder of copyright in material included in an app on the App Store, and licenses it only under the GPL, the GPL is the only basis on which Apple can claim to have the required permission.
So.... how's Walmart not an acceptable analogy?
Wal-Mart just re-sells copies that were sold to it. A copyright license simply doesn't apply and isn't even required. Wal-Mart didn't conduct any activity that is protected by copyright, and thus doesn't need to obtain with or comply with a license to conduct that activity.
Meanwhile Apple actually makes and distributes copies of the zip file. This is an activity that is covered by copyright. They are prohibited from doing this without a licnese. So they need a license... which they have...the GPL. But they must abide by its terms.
Not really, it's just pragmatic. The GPL leads the world closer to where it would be without intellectual property protections. Those of us who don't respect intellectual property lose nothing substantial by the GPL's terms - we ignore the mechanisms as we would any other license. Practically, we gain in that the "encumberance" in the license is for things we consider illegitimate, and the people who believe in IP find the board begin to tilt towards where we wanted it to be in the first place. We already have a big enough viral amount of software to exist comfortably - if we can get the GPL on enough things (and eventually abandon the LGPL) and make it so useful as to be indespensible, we'll be able to have the next best thing to real IP abolition, and on the way we'll sink enough money out of the pro-IP industry (at least in software) to make it easier to fend off legal and other threats. That's the idea, anyhow.
I can understand why people might be uncomfortable with the idea of using mechanisms that we don't think should exist - it's murky waters in most cases, particularly in politics. In this case, it's almost entirely benign because the license terms don't take away anything we think people should have in the first place. To repeat a nice quip,
The "freedom to encumber" works is like the "freedom to punch someone"... They are both 'freedoms' that only exist at the expense of others. -- Gregory Maxwell
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Quite right, the FSF has a history of contacting people first and silently arranging compliance.
Actually the Free Software Foundation's goals have nothing to do with "OSS" (open source software) and should not be confused with that movement's goals. The FSF predates the open source movement, the Open Source Initiative, and the FSF is appropriately critical of the open source movement's goals. People from the FSF (most notably Richard Stallman) are the principal authors of the GPLs, and Stallman makes a sharp distinction between the free software movement (which he founded) and the open source movement. You can find clear descriptions of that difference and practical consequences of that difference in almost any of his talks online or the essay I linked to.
Digital Citizen
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
In case you didn't read the summary, the project in question is GNU Go. Just in case the 'GNU' before the project name didn't tip you off, the copyright blurb for that program is: 'Copyright 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 by the Free Software Foundation.' Yes, indeed the FSF actually writes code. Who woulda thunk? A snowball will freeze in hell before we see the FSF dual-license any of their own code just to make this sort of accommodation. They have been staunch idealists since 1984.
I seem to remember that the FSF actually tangled with Steve Jobs before (in his NeXT days), and won, and so we have a Free Software Objective-C compiler:
And so to this day Apple's developer suite includes a modified version of GCC, for which they provide the sources in compliance with the GPL.
The FSF's motive in this action, as in everything they do, is the promotion of the Free Software ideology. They see it as an opportunity to get Apple to ease the draconian restrictions they impose on the App Store. Now, Apple is free to impose whatever restrictions it likes, but if they're not careful, they can step on other people like this. That's the downside to being platform dictator. Apple can possibly weasel around the GPL violation they seem to be guilty of by directing the action to the developer somehow. If they can't do this, and go to court, and lose (which is not outside the realm of possibility since they imposed additional restrictions in violation of section 6 of the GPLv2 which applies to GNU Go 3.6 and below, or section 10 of GPLv3 which applies to GNU Go 3.8), the FSF will have gotten a bunch of cash for their troubles. If Apple settles and eases restrictions, that would be even better for the FSF's mission. No one yet has been motivated enough to actually fight the FSF in court over a GPL violation, but if it comes to that Apple just might, given that what's at stake here is their business model for the App Store. It will be interesting to see how this develops.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
I've read the licence but I'm saying that certain causes are potentially unenforceable towards the first party (developer) let alone any third parties. The viral nature of the license for example from even linking to code should be denied. That implies that the license can somehow overwrite the copyright of another author.
Listen, it's pretty bloody simple: as soon as you make a copy of a piece of software, you need to have a licence to make that copy. If you don't have a licence, you can't make the copy. That's the reason it's illegal to copy computer games and share them using BitTorrent or Gnutella. The only difference here is that the FSF is using copyright law backwards, to make sure that nobody tries to stop you from sharing their software with anyone you like.
I don't know who you think is a "third party" in this case. The FSF wrote the software (first party); they distributed it to the "developer", who modified the software (second party); he distributed it to Apple (second party); Apple distributed it to end users (second party); the end users were prevented from distributing it.
Everyone other than the FSF, who hold the original copyright, requires a licence to use and distribute the software. In this case, that licence is the GPL, and the GPL requires that everyone who receives a copy of the software is free to make copies of that copy and distribute them to others. Apple are giving copies of the software to end users, but making them sign contracts saying that they won't redistribute it. Apple are therefore breaking the terms of the licence, and can't distribute the software. This case has nothing to do with linking, and nothing to do with any allegedly "viral" nature of the GPL.
Finally, no-one's forcing you to use GPL-licensed software. If you don't like the terms of the licence, either don't use the software, or wait until it comes out of copyright protection.
Pirate Party UK