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."

25 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 masmullin · · Score: 4, Funny

      The more they tighten their grip, the more open source software will slip through their fingers.

    2. 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!".

    3. Re:Fat Chance by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Informative

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

      My understanding is that to comply, Apple would just have to remove the clause that says if you create an app with their SDK you can't distribute that same version elsewhere, as that is what conflicts with the GPL. So all they'd have to do is add an exception for GPL apps and it would be of no real detriment to Apple. They probably will not, but they certainly could.

      You wouldn't know it from the summary, but mostly, this is an issue with some people taking a GPL app and violating the license and in the process authorizing Apple to redistribute and violate the license as well in the process. It's really no different from someone submitting a closed source app they don't have license to to Apple's app store.

    4. Re:Fat Chance by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 4, Informative

      RTFL. The distributor is the one responsible for complying with the GPL. Or rather, the entity that conveys the binary is responsible, ie Apple.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    5. 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
    6. Re:Fat Chance by kabloom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This sorta gotcha is why GPL developers prefer the GPL.

    7. Re:Fat Chance by interval1066 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Bertrand Serlet: "Steve, we've analyzed their attack, and there is a weakness. Shall I have your shuttle and our crack legal team standing by?" Steve Jobs: "Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances."

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    8. 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.

    9. 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
    10. 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. what?! no way. by Dyinobal · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    1. 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.

  3. 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.
    1. Re:I know what I would do. by Arker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If I were Apple, I would just pull the app and call it done.

      Although the FSF tends to be far too kind, the fact is copyright law doesnt work that way. They are still on the hook for infringement already committed - or at least could be, if the copyright holders want to pursue it.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    2. Re:I know what I would do. by greed · · Score: 5, Informative

      Apple's Developer Agreement for the iPhone SDK explicitly specified that your application must comply with open-source license terms.

      So if someone puts up a GPL application on the App Store without the source, they're not just in violation of the GPL, they're also in violation of Apple's terms.

      From http://adcdownload.apple.com/iphone/iphone_sdk_3.2__final/iphone_sdk_agreement.pdf, "3.3.16 If Your Application includes any FOSS, You agree to comply with all applicable FOSS licensing terms. You also agree not to use any FOSS in the development of Your Application in such a way that would cause the non-FOSS portions of the SDK to be subject to any FOSS licensing terms or obligations."

      In part, obviously, this is to keep someone from trying to lever open Apple's code with an FOSS license. But they've written it so that it also protects FOSS users and developers. It reads, to me, a lot like the GPL clause that says, "if you can't follow all these rules, you can't distribute the software."

    3. Re:I know what I would do. by hedwards · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Regardless of what the agreement might say, Apple is still on the hook for infringement. Considering the level of vetting that they give to applications going in and the number that have been blocked due to non-obvious problems, they're not going to be able to plead ignorance.

  4. Re:Wrong People by PipsqueakOnAP133 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    O RLY?
    What's preventing the developers from posting source on their web site like the other GPL apps on the app store?

  5. 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.
  6. No Kidding by pavon · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  7. The terms of service conflict by pavon · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  8. This is reminscint of "Sita Sings the Blues" by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  9. 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

  10. FSF stands for software freedom by jbn-o · · Score: 5, Informative

    The FSF almost invariably tries to contact companies and take a non-litigious approach first.

    Quite right, the FSF has a history of contacting people first and silently arranging compliance.

    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.

    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