Open Source Licensing and the App Store Model

snydeq writes "Savio Rodrigues sheds light on the limitations open source software faces in app stores, a problem that will only increase as the app store model proliferates. 'In effect, in the context of a GPLv2 license, an Apple App Store item that abides by Apple's terms of service is deemed to be restricting usage and imposing further limitation on usage rights than were envisioned by the original licensor of the open source code,' Rodrigues writes. 'Far from being an abstract example, this situation is precisely why the popular VLC media player was removed from the App Store.' Microsoft, for its part, disallows the use of GPLv2 altogether. 'With the vast amount of GPLv2 code available for use, the incompatibility between the App Store's (and Windows Marketplace's) terms of service on one hand and GPLv2 on the other is a problem in need of a fix.'"

Comments

What about Xcode?

[df5ea]

Apple's Xcode is included in the Mac App Store. It includes GPLed stuff like GCC. Can this be a problem like VLC?

Or are the rules for the Mac App Store different from those of the iOS App Store?

Re:What about Xcode?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's Xcode is included in the Mac App Store. It includes GPLed stuff like GCC. Can this be a problem like VLC?

Or are the rules for the Mac App Store different from those of the iOS App Store?

Rules?!?

We make dee steenkeen rules and day done apply to uz!

--- The Management, Apple, Inc.

Re:What about Xcode?

[larry bagina]

VLC wasn't a problem until a single contributor (and nokia employee) complained to Apple to have it removed.

Apple makes their gcc/etc source code available and the app store version of the gcc binary doesn't have any DRM and can be copied/modified so the FSF shouldn't have any reason to complain.

Re:What about Xcode?

[shutdown -p now]

Xcode is distributed by Apple itself, so they place no additional burden (with respect to providing source code on request etc) by putting it in the app store.

Re:What about Xcode?

[Trolan]

The problem that had been noted with VLC was that you had to go to a 'third party' site for the source, and you couldn't build the actual app and install it without additional hurdles. In this case the Xcode application itself isn't GPLd, LLVM (the default C/C++/Obj-C compiler) is similar to the BSD license, and any GPL source elements are available from Apple (http://opensource.apple.com/).

Xcode4 is kind of an odd duck in that it doesn't conform specifically to OSX AppStore guidelines (installs outside of /Applications, isn't a single .app file, etc)

Re:What about Xcode?

[harlows_monkeys]

VLC wasn't a problem until a single contributor (and nokia employee) complained to Apple to have it removed.

Apple makes their gcc/etc source code available and the app store version of the gcc binary doesn't have any DRM and can be copied/modified so the FSF shouldn't have any reason to complain.

No need to mention DRM, since DRM does not inherently conflict with GPLv2. The problem with GPLv2 and app stores is with the terms of services of the app stores.

Re:What about Xcode?

[harlows_monkeys]

The problem that had been noted with VLC was that you had to go to a 'third party' site for the source, and you couldn't build the actual app and install it without additional hurdles.

No, none of those were the problem with VLC. The problem with VLC was that the terms of service of the App Store, which users must agree to in order to be allowed to download and install the app, conflict with GPLv2.

Re:What about Xcode?

[sco08y]

Apple's Xcode is included in the Mac App Store. It includes GPLed stuff like GCC. Can this be a problem like VLC?

Or are the rules for the Mac App Store different from those of the iOS App Store?

Completely different. The Mac App Store is simply another way of getting software on your Mac. On iOS, the App Store is the only way of getting software.

Re:What about Xcode?

[hedwards]

DRM does inherently conflict with the GPL. DRM is specifically about preventing users from exercising some of the rights that the GPL provides. As in it's there to prevent you from copying the code. Now, I suppose that you could recompile the software without the DRM, but that's really reaching.

Re:What about Xcode?

[ifiwereasculptor]

Yes, but you could be sneaky about it. Say you provide the source code for the DRM-laden GPLd program and allows everyone to freely modify and distribute it, so people are free to take out the DRM and recompile. But you actually distribute it as a part of a locked device, running from a ROM chip. Nothing short of a hard mod would, then, allow you to bypass the DRM protection on that particular device. Still the code itself is perfectly free.

Re:What about Xcode?

[calmofthestorm]

I'm from Tivo. We're suing you for patent infringement.

Re:What about Xcode?

[thetoadwarrior]

The Mac store I suspect has different rules than the iOS store. After all the Mac store has loads of IDEs but there are none on the iOS.

Lugaru HD is on the Mac App store which is a game whose source is released under the GPL.

Re:What about Xcode?

[jo_ham]

No, the problem was a developer asked (no, sorry demanded) it be removed, so Apple complied with that request. What else were they going to do?

Apple changed the app store licensing and ToS in response to the first GPL issue - it is compatible with GPLv2, but not with v3 due to the tivo-isation clause.

Re:What about Xcode?

[thetoadwarrior]

It's because it was for the iOS. The Mac App store has GPL software. Lugaru HD is GPL and on the Mac App Store. VLC was on the iOS app store and I believe as mentioned was ok until someone complained.

The Mac Store is much more free than the iOS one. For starters you can have IDEs and software that accepts add-ons and other code from 3rd party sources.

Re:What about Xcode?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Apple store just makes restrictions for the user.... I don't think this is our (the open source ppl) problem... it's theirs. We can go without any of Apple's code, they can't without GPL source :) So.... they can do thing the open source way ,or the wrong way :D

Re:What about Xcode?

[RichiH]

Can you get the source via the App Store? If not, it's a violation of the GPL.

They have to offer you the source via exactly the same means as the binaries.

Re:What about Xcode?

[Lord Bitman]

"You won't let me sell food in your movie theater? But that's ridiculous! YOU sell food in your movie theater!

Re:What about Xcode?

[mikes.song]

VLC was removed because someone complained, and Apple did not want to deal with the problem

That said, I do not believe GPL2 prevents users from posting in the App Store. Here's why.

It is said that it can not be posted, because someone can not freely use the code that is shared when it's posted. That's not true. Anyone can use the code. The true complaint is that you can't sign and distribute the code without paying $99. Does GPL say that there has to be free code certs? I don't think so. The only issue is the code certificate need to sign the code.

Re:What about Xcode?

[jeaton]

No, they don't have to offer it "via exactly the same means as the binaries".

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
        b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
        c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Nothing in there says that the source must be provided in the same form as the binary. You could have binaries released via the App store, but mail out source code on CD, for instance.

Re:What about Xcode?

[Lord Bitman]

I create a video player that reads a video file and a decryption key, Neither of these things are part of the video player's code base.
I sell you a piece of hardware which includes: 1) The video player software burned into some write-once chip 2) The complete source code for that software.

You have the source-code, and you can compile it yourself in such a way that you can view any keys involved. But you can't* modify the device I sold you (the device itself isn't covered by any license or law requiring it to be easy to modify, just like your cell phone).

And you can't just "remove the DRM" and expect it to work. That would only work in a case where the only "DRM" involved was a "can I play this?" flag, which is so trivial it hardly qualifies (and is specifically not covered by the DMCA, for that matter)

*this ignores the fact that the entire "Is DRM compatible with GPL?" question is moot, since DRM is not compatible with reality

Re:What about Xcode?

[yakatz]

Can you get the source via the App Store? If not, it's a violation of the GPL.

They have to offer you the source via exactly the same means as the binaries.

100% WRONG!!

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

1. a} Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
2. b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
3. c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Re:What about Xcode?

[asdf7890]

It does not inherently conflict with all DRM, by my understanding.

It only conflicts with DRM affecting anything covered by the license - i.e. the code and anything compiled from it or any other code derived from it. It does not cover data that might be used by the compiled code, so it does not conflict with applying DRM to protect content like media files.

Re:What about Xcode?

[aliquis]

Not necessary the problem. Also does the single developer got anything to say about it as soon as it was GPLed and Apple followed the GPL?

The complaint was more likely the trigger for the removal, but it maybe have been and most likely where incompatible from the start. But accepted anyway. Ie contract breach I guess.

Re:What about Xcode?

[aliquis]

Or well, there was no contract.

But either they had to follow the GPL, which may have rendered their own license unusable.

Or not follow the GPL and hence break the copyright of the developers.

But I see I was wrong regardless from your last sentence ;)

Re:What about Xcode?

[salesgeek]

Applying DRM to a compiled binary is not at all problematic so long a source code is made available. There is no issue with DRM implementations in GPL software. That said, DRM is a tool, like a hammer or gun. It can be used for good (ensuring binaries are not tampered with), restricting access to sensitive data, or evil (forcing you to buy that Led Zepplin song again every time you buy a new player). Ultimately the flaw is that DRM relies on an illusion that today's cryptography will protect things forever, when reality is that as computers improve, items protected today become trivial to crack in the future.

Re:What about Xcode?

[RichiH]

> 100% WRONG!!

True. Thanks :)

Re:What about Xcode?

[jo_ham]

Well, not really, since there are other GPLv2 apps on the store - the developer, who was part of the team that put VLC together objected after the fact, so Apple said "ok, we'll comply and take it down".

I think the FSF were expecting Apple to do something different (ie, do what the FSF "suggested" they do), rather than simply comply with the removal request. But hey, double win, since this means they can call it "being hostile to open source" and "removing open source apps from the store!"

Re:What about Xcode?

[Anonymous Coward]

GPLv2 doesn't restrict runtime restrictions on one's freedom, merely legal restrictions on one's freedom. It's kinda why there's a GPLv3 in the first place.

Re:What about Xcode?

[zeroshade]

You've described the "tivo-ization" clause in the GPLv3 which prevents precisely what you described.

Re:What about Xcode?

[harlows_monkeys]

No, there is no conflict with DRM and GPLv2. That's one of the reasons GPLv3 came about. See TiVo.

GPLv2 does not allow you to restrict users from exercising GPL rights via the imposition of additional license restrictions. Attempting to restrict the users by technological means instead of legal means is beyond the scope of GPL.

Re:What about Xcode?

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL: If it doesn't include the DRM signing key (source), and the "iphone" requires the binary be "compiled" with it, the source is incomplete.

Limited problem.

[Microlith]

First, this article is a pitch for OpenLogic's software.

The problem has a limited number of causes:

• Apple's App Store forces users to agree to a ToS that applies extra restrictions on the software delivered that is explicitly prohibited by the GPL.
• The devices provide no means whatsoever for a user to load software on the device without going through the App Store.

Were the second case not true, this wouldn't be an issue. If the first case were not true, this would probably not be an issue either. Both cases being true make Open Source (or rather, Free Software) unwelcome on both Microsoft and Apple's mobile platforms, which is exactly how they want it.

Re:Limited problem.

[nuggz]

The question really is why does Apple force a ToS that prohibit the use of GPL code.

The second question is if the benefit of GPL and other free code is strong enough to make these closed platforms uncompetative.
In some cases it will be better to simply use the GPL code and not realase on platforms that don't allow GPL code.

Re:Limited problem.

[Microlith]

Oh and Slashdot should remove the <ul> and <li> tags from the list of permitted HTMl if they're going to strip the bullets. Yet another hole in Slashdot 2.0.

Oh yay, 5 minute delay. What the fuck, Taco.

Re:Limited problem.

[Microlith]

he question really is why does Apple force a ToS that prohibit the use of GPL code.

It's a side effect of their desire to lay terms and conditions on the users of the App Store. The Apple philosophy seems to be control, regardless of what side-effects it has.

This feeds into the desire for a solid experience, but I think it's become a ridiculous and punitive obsession.

The second question is if the benefit of GPL and other free code is strong enough to make these closed platforms uncompetative.

People are trying, of course. But no vendor seems to have the wherewithal to create a truly good experience, or try and generate the hype necessary to counter Apple. And Apple could undermine that by allowing end-users to load software freely without the App Store.

And I don't at all count Google as the savior here, since going with them basically means you're throwing the existing world of open source and Free Software on a bonfire (which is expected, when you're conforming to design decisions made for what was supposed to be closed source software.)

Re:Limited problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think your bullets were stripped by Slashdot. I can see them. If you cannot see them, perhaps one of our browsers is not rendering it properly. I'm using FF 3.6.15 on Ubuntu. What are you using?

Re:Limited problem.

[Microlith]

FF4 RC1 on Vista64... odd.

Re:Limited problem.

[number6x]

If the source were included (or included as an option) in the download, would that resolve the issue? Most people would not include the optional extra, but providing it could resolve the issue.

Re:Limited problem.

[Microlith]

If the source were included (or included as an option) in the download, would that resolve the issue?

Inclusion of the source code would not resolve the issue, because it still places restrictions on how the App can be used. Not that it would help, since the user can't rebuild/load it anyway without violating the Apple EULA.

Re:Limited problem.

[Snocone]

If the source were included (or included as an option) in the download,

That's exactly how id does it for instance, pop open the Wolf3D.ipa iTunes installed and hey presto there it is.

> would that resolve the issue?

No, the alleged issue -- the biggest, anyways, there's a few more -- is that you can't redistribute the binary (well, you can to jailbroken devices or developers who can run codesign themselves, but in the general case you can't). Source doesn't come into it at all; anyone who claims source distribution is an issue should be gently corrected that there is no impediment to including all GPL-required assets in the .ipa iTunes provides, and pointed at the live example of Wolf3D should they need to prove so to themselves.

Since there is no way in hell ... and nor should there be, anyone who is sane enough to recognize security concerns attendant on any responsible smartphone provider will accept ... that Apple will ever allow unsigned binaries access to their devices, this issue is effectively unresolvable until the FSF pulls its head out and accepts that the general public really, truly, should have code signing protection, remote malware killswitch, etc. for their smartphone devices; there's just too much personal and financial information available there for any responsible company to not do their best to lock down the platform.

And if you're not the general public, you can go right ahead and take the developer option mentioned above, and for the foreseeable future you'll probably be able to take advantage of the jailbreak option too. So there really is no issue here, to people who are reasonable enough to consider the user instead of just their rabid Apple-hating zealotry. 'Tis strange indeed that whilst the TOS of Android Market are similarly infringing in all the ways that are alleged to matter wrt remote kill and so forth, the Apple-bad crowd never seem to notice...

Re:Limited problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is against all software they can't control. The GPL encourages tinkering, experimentation, and in some cases forking. Apple is the enemy of the Free Software Foundation, make no mistake. Your freedom cuts into their profits.

Re:Limited problem.

[newDzerzhinsky]

Agreed...It's pretty odd that someone would be using Vista64 ;)

Re:Limited problem.

[Anthony Mouse]

And I don't at all count Google as the savior here, since going with them basically means you're throwing the existing world of open source and Free Software on a bonfire (which is expected, when you're conforming to design decisions made for what was supposed to be closed source software.)

I don't know... Android is clearly not the supreme platform for open source software, but it's still the best of all the viable alternatives. And if it wins in the marketplace then we're on much stronger footing because getting a fully-open solution working which is compatible with the dominant platform is much easier when the dominant platform is mostly open and Linux-based.

Re:Limited problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you should probably tell that to Apple. They open source many of their projects, and tend to give back to the open source community. Things like CUPS, Webkit, OpenCL, OpenStep, etc.

They even have a website specifically for that purpose. Hard to control something that you open source....

http://www.opensource.apple.com/

Re:Limited problem.

[Anthony Mouse]

Since there is no way in hell ... and nor should there be, anyone who is sane enough to recognize security concerns attendant on any responsible smartphone provider will accept ... that Apple will ever allow unsigned binaries access to their devices, this issue is effectively unresolvable until the FSF pulls its head out and accepts that the general public really, truly, should have code signing protection, remote malware killswitch, etc. for their smartphone devices; there's just too much personal and financial information available there for any responsible company to not do their best to lock down the platform.

There is nothing preventing the GPL from being compatible with those things if implemented properly. The key is that you have to make installing unsigned software obnoxious but not impossible, so that anybody who wants to can do it but at the same time nobody will do it lightly or by accident. The developer option would probably be fine if you didn't have to pay anything or buy a Mac to exercise it.

'Tis strange indeed that whilst the TOS of Android Market are similarly infringing in all the ways that are alleged to matter wrt remote kill and so forth, the Apple-bad crowd never seem to notice...

Because you can install Android apps that aren't from the Android Market?

Re:Limited problem.

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Your comment is absolutely stupid.

You attack the FSF for no reason whatsoever. Since when is code-signing GPL-incompatible? What's incompatible is DRM. You don't need DRM to sign your code. All distros sign their code, that's what GPG is for, it's external to the actual app, and it's not in violation of the GPL.

The problem is that Apple wants to control everything. Not any FSF-related issue.

BTW: Nothing in the Android Market is in violation of the GPL. The remote kill switch and the TOS are compliant, and most importantly, you can override them (You can install anything you want, outside the market or otherwise). Some specific manufacturers do break the GPL, but not google.

Re:Limited problem.

[hduff]

The question really is why does Apple force a ToS that prohibit the use of GPL code.

Because they are free to choose whatever ToS they desire for whatever reason they desire. It's their app store, their platform and their customers voting with their wallets.

The second question is if the benefit of GPL and other free code is strong enough to make these closed platforms uncompetative.
In some cases it will be better to simply use the GPL code and not realase on platforms that don't allow GPL code.

No. The ToS presents an artificial barrier that favors apps that abide by their ToS. Since there is a profit incentive to be a successful app and no profit incentive to be a ideologically pure app, I suspect that the ToS-compliant apps and their platforms will survive nicely (lot's of people don't care about FOSS ideology) and GPL apps will never be allowed to compete in those official app stores.

Re:Limited problem.

[SETIGuy]

It's likely that Apple's distribution of X-code with GPLv2 components is illegal if the AppStore terms of service restrict redistribution of the downloaded software. If those terms exist, it doesn't matter if source code were included, because the person downloading Xcode would be restricted from redistributing in either source or binary form. Simple as that. For distribution to be stopped, one of the GCC copyright holders would need to complain.

Re:Limited problem.

[SETIGuy]

The App Store could be compatible with the GPL, if Steve Jobs didn't have the "my way or the highway" stick up his ass. The App Store is either poorly designed, or well designed if violating the GPL is you main goal.

Re:Limited problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll suck Apple's proverbial cock if they open source something that matters: say, iOS.

Re:Limited problem.

[Tjp($)pjT]

The second case is not true. There are two methods to load software outside the App store. Note GPL does not require tools or equipment used to be free.

• First - jailbreak the phone. Then your world is opened. And it is legal to do. There are risks the user assumes for this, but that is normal.
• Second - Get a developer license. Pay Apple $99 a year to develop software for the iPhone. Build the App from scratch, or well lets just say if you're a legit developer and your device is flaged for developer use, certain other venues are open. Which you can discover elsewhere

And open source licensed under BSD/MIT/many more ... That is available as a resource to use for App Store Apps. No software that I have used (but experiences vary) has refused to give me access to a copy of the open source items they used even as they modified them.

Lastly, I am actually looking to modify the GPL v2 text (as allowed by FSF) to accommodate the App Store (tm)Apple, Google and Microsoft market place (Google is sort of easier, but maybe not for long after the virus-ware there). Interested in helping me and a lawyer willing to donate some time? write me at the very disposable email address slashlegalhelp @ chammy.info . After a few weeks this will not be monitored.

Re:Limited problem.

[the_womble]

I though you could build a fully open source Android? The Cyanogen wiki says it is GPL and Apache licensed (which I assume means that some bits are GPL and others are Apache).

Re:Limited problem.

[Anthony Mouse]

I though you could build a fully open source Android? The Cyanogen wiki says it is GPL and Apache licensed (which I assume means that some bits are GPL and others are Apache).

Right, but that's not what you get on your phone when you go to Verizon and ask them for a Droid, because Motorola has made changes (presumably to the Apache licensed bits) which they don't publish, and have everything set up to prevent you from changing things as you like.

I think what I'd really like to see is something like the Nexus line, but available on all carriers and capable of running apt-get and anything else in the GNU userland.

Re:Limited problem.

[Microlith]

getting a fully-open solution working which is compatible with the dominant platform

The problem is that there is nothing existing in the open source world that is compatible with Android... except Android. It was never meant to be compatible, it was meant to be proprietary.

Re:Limited problem.

[SuricouRaven]

"You can install anything you want, outside the market or otherwise"
No, you can't. At least not without jailbreaking, which is of dubious legality and means losing access to future updates. Also, it can only be done at all because Apple programmers screw up - it's still possible they'll come up in future with a phone which is impossible to jailbreak without warming up a soldering iron.

Android, in contrast, only runs signed code by default - but there is a very simple option you can untick to change this, and the you can run whatever you want. No hacking required. But with the iPhone and Windows phones, it's their way or no way: If they havn't signed the program, the phone won't run it short of jailbreaking. This is partially about security, partially about control*, and partially about money**

*There are some things Apple appears to loathe, like emulators, flash, or anything that reimpliments the phone's own functionality. They will not permit these.
**The app store brings in a tidy profit - if there were a way for developers to sell directly to users, Apple wouldn't get to take their cut.

Re:Limited problem.

[ET3D]

Both cases being true make Open Source (or rather, Free Software) unwelcome on both Microsoft and Apple's mobile platforms

If by "Free Software" you mean copyleft, then yes, but that's simply because copyleft licenses (and in particular GPL) are limited in the usage they allow. The app store situation is unlikely to change and is likely to become even more common as the main computing platform moves further away from being PC-centric. IMO if GPL wants to remain relevant it needs to adapt. It should be possible to create a copyleft license which takes into consideration app stores and closed devices. Other source code licenses are compatible with these app stores, and might gain more traction if GPL remains incompatible.

Re:Limited problem.

[multisync]

I'm using ff 3.6.15 on Ubuntu and I don't see his bullets.

Re:Limited problem.

[Anthony Mouse]

OK, but so what? Android is just the UI and some libraries, it's still Linux underneath and it's all open source. You don't really have to re-implement anything -- if you need some library from desktop Linux that isn't in Android, you don't have to rewrite it, you just have to statically link it. There is obviously some work to be done to e.g. get gtk and qt working with the Android UI, but they already work with OS X and win32 and I'll eat my hat if they can't reuse a large majority of the OS-dependent code from desktop Linux. To say nothing of the possibility of just running x.org alongside Android as a stopgap measure in much the same way x.org runs on OS X.

Re:Limited problem.

[ET3D]

From Ars Technica's discussion on the subject from last year it looks like Apple is actually considering open source in its license. The GPL is a special case, and IMO the solution should be similar to YouTube and copyrighted videos. That is, there should be a channel for the FSF or others to complain about GPL apps and for Apple to remove them as a result.

Re:Limited problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

The second case is not true; for a mere $99, the user can load whatever software they want on their iPhone for a year.

If it's about "free as in speech," that should be enough.

Re:Limited problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure I've seen much Apache-modified code on stock Motorola phones. Usually the closed parts on Motorola's OTAs are their proprietary apps and background services, and sometimes the system libraries they use. For instance - DLNA, HDMI, MotoBlur widgets, that kind of thing. Motorola makes some minor changes to stock Android apps (Settings, Dialer) but IIRC they host the modified source code on their website.

AOSP-ROM builds for Motorola phones either stick to pure open-source Android, or they rip Motorola additions (illegally).

If I'm right then Motorola isn't much different from Google - their system apps are also closed.

Re:Limited problem.

[brian.swetland]

Realistically, it should be under a week's work for somebody to use the NDK (native development kit) to throw together an Xserver that runs inside a SurfaceFlinger (Android's compositor) Surface and then you could run whatever existing X-compatible thing under that. You could build a wrapper/adapter app that would allow "native linux apps" to trivially run this way (basically app xserver/clientlibrary window compositor/windowmanager).

It's not hard to build open source software to run on Android and there are plenty of tools to help you do it, especially on Gingerbread were the NDK provides support for native (C/C++) apps.

Yes, Android is not natively X11/Gtk/whatever, but that certainly didn't stop people from getting this stuff to run on Win32 or OSX...

Re:Limited problem.

[Sam Douglas]

I suspect the GP was referring to Android when he said "you can install anything you want"

Re:Limited problem.

[SuricouRaven]

Indeed. My mistake.

Re:Limited problem.

[thetoadwarrior]

Sure for the iOS but the Mac Store has plenty of software that works for external code and it has GPL'ed software from companies other than Apple. In the case of the game Lugaru HD even when there was controversy (someone placed the game on there but they weren't the original developer) that version was removed but the original developer was still allowed to sell their game on the Mac App Store. MPlayerX is a GPl'ed media player and one of the top apps in its category on the Mac store.

The iOS and and Mac app stores are completely different from each other.

Re:Limited problem.

[Sam Douglas]

It's a violation of the fundamental principle of free software. If I stop paying Apple for the developer license, then I stop being able to USE the software on my phone. They hold the power over the owners of the phones to stop them from using the apps they compiled; and that restricts your freedom to use the software.

This doesn't seem to be a direct violation of the GPLv2 (the license claims no restrictions over using the program, but doesn't seem to require the distributor to ensure modified versions can be used). It is a violation of the GPLv3, which requires that object code distributed for a "user product" (something that is primarily used by a person; consumer electronics fall into this category) must also be distributed with:

any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.

If you distribute software covered by the GPLv3 in the Apple App Store, you cannot satisfy the requirement of the license to also distribute whatever is necessary to ensure the continued functioning of the modified software; as Apple holds that power. The problem wouldn't exist if Apple allowed users to elect to run applications that are not authorised in the app store (such as with the Android market).

I have neither an iPhone nor Mac, so I'm not sure what the details of the developer license are, but from what I can tell it seems like that would also make it impractical to distribute modified copies -- chances are the app would be rejected from the app store on the grounds of being too similar to another app if it were merely an improved version; or you'd only be able to run it on other developer devices (and I'm not sure what restrictions are on that too).

Re:Limited problem.

[thetoadwarrior]

They're doing it on the iOS, I suspect because the code is useless on the iOS and you aren't meant to build your own apps so it's sort of pointless. But the source code has a use on OS X so GPL'ed software is ok and you can find GPL'ed apps or apps that would break the ToS in other ways if they were iOS apps.

There are a lot of people on here making assumptions about the process without having any experience or knowledge of the Mac Apple store and iOS app store.

Re:Limited problem.

[Sam Douglas]

The GPL does not limit "usage" in the sense of using the software. It limits distribution; there is a big difference. The problem with app stores are vendors that want to have complete control over what the OWNER of the device can do with it. The Android Marketplace is far from perfect (it probably needs better filtering for apps to avoid spammy shit or malware) but most Android devices I have seen still allow you to elect to run code from third party sources. This is not incompatible with the idea of free and open source software.

Re:Limited problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Printing on Linux would still be a huge pain in the ass if Apple didn't do tons of work on CUPS, and I'd argue that their work on Webkit has been even more significant.

Re:Limited problem.

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

The App Store could be compatible with the GPL, if Steve Jobs didn't have the "my way or the highway" stick up his ass. The App Store is either poorly designed, or well designed if violating the GPL is you main goal.

The GPL could be compatible with the App Store if RMS didn't have the "my way or the highway" stick up his ass. The GPL is either poorly designed, or well designed if violating Apple and its customers is you main goal.

Re:Limited problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't think that 'free' code which cannot be run on a device as a result of an idealogical objection to said device isn't also a ridiculous and punitive obsession?

That's like saying that twitter should be blocked by all countries under totalitarian governments, because until they behave like civilised people, their citizens don't deserve democratising technologies.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Re:Limited problem.

[SETIGuy]

The GPL was designed long before the App Store existed, and before RMS started violating your mother. The AppStore was designed to prevent apps from using the GPL, not the other converse.

Re:Limited problem.

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

The GPL was designed long after Apple existed, and before Steve Jobs started violating your mother. The GPL was designed to prevent people from using Apple products, not the other converse.

Re:Limited problem.

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

It's a violation of the fundamental principle of free software. If I stop paying Apple for the developer license, then I stop being able to USE the software on my phone.

Bullshit.

Re:Limited problem.

[Sam Douglas]

From "The Free Software Definition":

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

I think the common assumption is that the freedom to run the program is guaranteed by free software licenses by virtue of them not restricting it. If I obtain the source code for an iOS port of an app, in order to exercise the freedoms the original software developer required to be passed on to me, I need to get an iOS developer license. The contract for receiving this license is not made public by Apple, but the EFF published one at some point (https://www.eff.org/files/20100302_iphone_dev_agr.pdf) which seems to indicate that you can register "authorised test devices" to run individual apps, but it does not seem to be the case that a developer phone is essentially unlocked:

You may obtain development related digital certificates from Apple, subject to a maximum number as reasonably determined by Apple, that will allow Your Application to be installed and tested on Authorized Test Devices.

Basically, it appears to me that getting a developer license as Tjp($)pjT suggested is not a valid approach for using free software on an iPhone. Furthermore the contract requires you to agree that the license of your app, or any third party code within it does not conflict with the digital signing requirements (so the GPLv3 is out of the question); and that the app store is the sole distribution channel for your application.

The GPLv2 and GPLv3 both require that you pass on the right to redistribute the software in modified or unmodified form to recipients of the software, thus by distributing a GPL licensed program via the app store would be in violation of the GPL and your rights under the license revoked.

Re:Limited problem.

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

What does that have to do with your bullshit "If I stop paying Apple for the developer license, then I stop being able to USE the software on my phone."? Nothing.

Re:Limited problem.

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Are you still telling me RMS isn't dogmatic?

Re:Limited problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

When I wrote that I had not seen an iPhone developer agreement. If getting a developer license allowed you to run any app on your device, and the developer license is paid as a subscription then I would be prevented from using apps I recompiled if I stopped paying Apple.

Apple is the distributor of the app and in that situation they would be requiring to pay a license to use the app. Requiring fees/royalties is not permitted under the Open Source Definition
  I suspect that may also be considered "sublicensing" which is prohibited by the GPL.

Anyway, my argument was that it violated the intentions of free software developers ; the GPLv3 expressly addresses that by requiring that the distributor provides the necessary stuff to run modified copies on the device. The iPhone developer agreement blocks the use of software with such licensing terms.

Re:Limited problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL is viral. The specific virus it resembles, is herpes.

Re:Limited problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here, here Microlith. They will never want Free Software anywhere near them. Maybe we should do neighbourhood round asking if People want Free Software and we can show them how to use it.

My app got booted from it as well

[happyhacker7]

Apple just boots everything they want,and apply double standards everywhere.
I for example wrote small application that allows you to create a list of items you are going to buy,
see how much money you will need, search the web for cheaper alternatives, and many more features.
You can see it on my blog.
I didn't even got a reason why it was removed.

Clarification Needed

[Midnight Thunder]

Maybe the Free Software Foundation and Apple needs to sit down together, so we open source developers can find out where they stand.

Myself, I have no issue paying for open source, especially when it helps the developers, but it would be nice to be able to have open source software on the app store. What do companies like Apple have to fear?

Re:Clarification Needed

[Microlith]

It'll never happen. Apple would have to give up some control over the platform and they'll NEVER let that happen.

Re:Clarification Needed

[hedwards]

I'm just surprised that Steve allows Apple users to keep their keyboards, mouses and touchscreen. I'm thinking their getting dangerously inventing something like this: Apple's goal invention.

Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[LodCrappo]

Problem fixed.

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that'll solve the problem. Cause FOSS has such an easy time with distribution now, it don't need no steenking app store.

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[turbidostato]

"Yeah, that'll solve the problem. Cause FOSS has such an easy time with distribution now, it don't need no steenking app store."

Maybe it doesn't need no stinking *Apple* app store if other contenders (I'm looking at you, Android) are clever enough to offer better conditions to open source developers.

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[westlake]

Maybe it doesn't need no stinking *Apple* app store if other contenders (I'm looking at you, Android) are clever enough to offer better conditions to open source developers.

It doesn't matter that the shelves are filled if the store is empty.

No customers.

iPad to grab up to 80 percent of the 2011 tablet market share, report claims

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't 80% in 2011 actually a considerable loss from 2010?

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, apt-get get is like the mother of all app stores.

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't use the GPL problem fixed.

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[Anthony Mouse]

It doesn't matter that the shelves are filled if the store is empty.

No customers.

Android market share now exceeds iOS market share. And that's with Apple still riding the first to market advantage on the iPad, so we'll see if that lasts once there are a few dozen Android tablet models on the market.

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[larry bagina]

73% in Q4, 83% for the year.. That's based on "shipped", not sold to consumers. Samsung did a lot of channel stuffing and won't release numbers on how many were actually sold. Additionally, the galaxy tab had a 16% return rate (vs 2% for the iPad).

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[westlake]

Problem fixed.

Number of replies to this story: 88 (as of 10:45 PM ET, March 12)

4.5 Million Tablets Were Sold in Q3 2010; 4.2 Million Were iPads

You do the math.

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[LodCrappo]

http://techaryan.com/eric-schmidt-350000-android-activations-every

350,000 Android activations *every day*. Do you really want to do the math?

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[onefriedrice]

Problem fixed.

Or just take advantage of the large amount of non-copyleft yet open source code available. Then you don't have to take an option off the table entirely, ironically. People who work hard on their projects and want to restrict distribution in accordance with the ideals of the GPL should (and do) have that choice; there is plenty of free stuff (and more) available to those who choose not to be so rigid.

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[LodCrappo]

I don't see how forgoing all copyleft software is solving the problem mentioned in this story (since this story is specifically about the problem with using that software), regardless of if you use other software or not.

OTOH, if you stick to devices which don't impose restrictions on the software you can run, you do in fact solve the problem, if only for yourself.

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[SETIGuy]

So you like having your work stolen?

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[shutdown -p now]

It was that way with phones a year ago, but already isn't now. iPad has been on the market for a year now; the first Android tablet blessed by Google came out two weeks ago. Give it the same time for tablets as it took for phones - if not less - and the store will be full.

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[Anonymous Coward]

How could any of my code get stolen if I still have it? When someone else uses my code my hard drive and source repository don't magically disappear.

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop being religious about software ideology.

Problem fixed.

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[MichaelSmith]

But as long as you can go root and copy the binaries it complies with the GPL. I can't go root on iOS or Android.

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[thetoadwarrior]

You're right you can find it anywhere including the Mac App Store.

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[Anonymous Coward]

So apple controlled only about %80 of the first year sales in a market they supposedly invented singlehandedly? color me unimpressed.

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[Anonymous Coward]

This argument is pointless because every third rate manufacturer is putting Android on their phones now. If there's not more Android phones in use right now, there will be soon. Most of them will be complete fucking garbage... but there will be a lot of them.

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't know about iphone OS, but I can certainly get root on my android phone

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[SETIGuy]

So you're saying you don't mind me taking your work and passing it off as my own, so long as I don't erase your hard drive?

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

So apple controlled only about %80 of the first year sales in a market they supposedly invented singlehandedly? color me unimpressed.

Well, Apple did not invent the "Media Pads slightly bigger than an iPod touch", yet these actually make up the bigest part of the 20% - so yeah.

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking someone's work and passing it off as your own is plagiarism, and a separate issue to copyright licensing.

Re:Don't buy anything that uses such an App store

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

http://socialbarrel.com/apple-tops-mobile-os-with-more-than-366k-ios-devices-sold-daily/2912/ 366,666 iOS mobile devices/day.”

Why such boring stories?

[happyhacker8]

Like a submission about a crazy hacker that wrote a game(direct link) to be played in url bar!.
I did just look at firehouse, and there are much better articles,

Re:Why such boring stories?

[SuricouRaven]

It's goatse. Don't look.

Re:Why such boring stories?

[Lanteran]

Another goatse link.

Maybe the market will fix the problem?

[BenJCarter]

Why buy devices locked to proprietary standards and licensing? I'd bet a six pack of micro brew the most open market will win the most customers. Android anyone?

Re:Maybe the market will fix the problem?

[PhilHibbs]

Why buy devices locked to proprietary standards and licensing? I'd bet a six pack of micro brew the most open market will win the most customers. Android anyone?

Because they work really well, and are extremely reliable and secure. Unlike Android. Last summer I was genuinely of the opinion that my next phone would be an Android. But then I accidentally smashed my iPhone 3 and had to get a replacement right away and got an iPhone 4 (yes, locked in by dependecy on certain apps) so that's put it back a bit. With the recent story about infected apps on the Android Market, I am having second thoughts about switching at all.

Re:Maybe the market will fix the problem?

[LodCrappo]

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

-Benjamin Franklin

*He said something like that, no one seems to know exactly what the specific quote is, this is one possible wording. In any case I strongly agree with his meaning.

Re:Maybe the market will fix the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you even know if your iPhone was rootkitted via a webpage?

I think the only reason Android apps were detected is because you can open them up in any ZIP viewer and see whether they bundle known rooting programs. And I believe the app needs the 'system tools' permission to execute them, making it an obvious attack method.

Re:Maybe the market will fix the problem?

[Anthony Mouse]

With the recent story about infected apps on the Android Market, I am having second thoughts about switching at all.

I guess FUD works.

You know you could get an Android phone and just not install shady apps.

Incidentally, has someone ported Synaptic or the like to Android yet? It would be incredibly convenient to have an "app store" app which is full of free software. Especially because then you could have repositories run by people you trust who make sure nothing in them is malicious. And get all the advantages of the walled garden, but without the walls -- because hey, if I want to install the app my college buddy wrote, I still can.

Re:Maybe the market will fix the problem?

[LodCrappo]

not sure if there is anything like synaptic, but it certainly could be done. AFAIK anyone can create a market, several exist.
if there is any real value in the walled garden, anyone could make one for Android and provide a limited experience for those who desired it.

Re:Maybe the market will fix the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that what Amazon was doing?

IMO Android needs not only an open market but a better distribution -- one with a more complete Linux and userland; one which doesn't cater to phones with only 1GB internal storage. I want to see Debian running on my phone :p.

Re:Maybe the market will fix the problem?

[GRW]

There is F-Droid Repository "an easily-installable catalogue of FOSS applications for the Android platform. The server contains the details of multiple versions of each application, and the Android client makes it easy to browse, install them onto your device, and keep track of updates."

What does GPLv2 code have to gain here?

[LodCrappo]

Why would FOSS developers care whether users who buy into company A's platform can use the software?

Isn't this something the people who bought company A's stuff should be talking to company A about, since the users are the ones at a disadvantage and company A's restrictive model is the reason?

Re:What does GPLv2 code have to gain here?

[Microlith]

Why would FOSS developers care whether users who buy into company A's platform can use the software?

Because Company A is making the arbitrary decision that users should not be allowed to use FOSS, and banking on them not caring because they don't know.

Re:What does GPLv2 code have to gain here?

[LodCrappo]

I get that, I agree with you... but.. why would FOSS care what company A does or if it's users can use FOSS? What does FOSS have to gain here?

Re:What does GPLv2 code have to gain here?

[zill]

Just like any other religion, FOSS seeks to gain new followers.

Every new Ballmer voodoo doll makes Microsoft weaker.

Re:What does GPLv2 code have to gain here?

[PhilHibbs]

It's not arbitrary. Apple have locked down their devices, and for (IMO) good reasons. The GPL forbids distribution of locked down derivatives, so it isn't Apple's doing, it's the GPL's. Same for Microsoft.

Re:What does GPLv2 code have to gain here?

[aristotle-dude]

It's not arbitrary. Apple have locked down their devices, and for (IMO) good reasons. The GPL forbids distribution of locked down derivatives, so it isn't Apple's doing, it's the GPL's. Same for Microsoft.

Citation needed. Give us the specific clause int he GPL Version 2 that states exactly that. Put up or shut up. The GPL Version 2 is a "source" license. Version 3 tries to go beyond that and specify what you can and cannot do with the binary. I'm not sure if those are enforceable but the author can always resort to copyright to block distribution.

Re:What does GPLv2 code have to gain here?

[Microlith]

Apple have locked down their devices, and for (IMO) good reasons.

Two things:

1) They have locked down their user's devices, not their devices.
2) They do so for the sole reason of forcing you under their control and services under their control. It provides no security whatsoever.

Re:What does GPLv2 code have to gain here?

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL has clauses that prevent the addition of restrictions beyond what the GPL allows for. The limitations set by the GPL are incompatible with the Appstore's ToS. It's the same story for code under CDDL or MPL. The problem is on the GPL's end.

Grandparent is right. This isn't an arbitrary anti-GPL decision by Apple or MS, take it up with the FSF,

Re:What does GPLv2 code have to gain here?

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL is not a "source" license. It is explicitly about the conditions to distribute binaries, one of the condition being to provide the source code not only of your modified binary but also of proprietary binaries that are linked to the code under GPLv2.
See sections 3, 4, 5 about this condition about redistribution.
Citation: "This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs."
Citation: " You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.

Re:What does GPLv2 code have to gain here?

[PhilHibbs]

Apple have locked down their devices, and for (IMO) good reasons.

Two things:

1) They have locked down their user's devices, not their devices.

Semantics. It was Apple's device before I bought it, and I knew what I was buying into. I've stated my opinion, you've stated yours, there's no point saying more. I've seen this thread played out too many times already and it never gets anywhere. I'm not blindly committed to the Holy Book of Jobs. Maybe I'll change my mind. Maybe I'll "see the light". But it isn't going to happen here and now.

Re:What does GPLv2 code have to gain here?

[Anonymous Coward]

hope you see the light someday. Might happen faster if you open your mind and quit defending your past.

Re:What does GPLv2 code have to gain here?

[Anonymous Coward]

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
        b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
        c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Do not follow this link

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would anyone need to use tinyurl to shorten something simple like gw001.dyndns-blog.com? Because it redirects to goatse.ru?

Do not follow this link

Not incompatible

[mysidia]

the incompatibility between the App Store's (and Windows Marketplace's) terms of service on one hand and GPLv2 on the other is a problem in need of a fix.'"

No, the app store model does not need a fix, because it's not inherently incompatible. Source code can still be provided, with download instructions.

What's in need of a fix are the fact that phones are locked down to prevent the user from modifying and installing any application they want, without crypto signing and the manufacturer's approval.

App store providers can fix it if they insert a clause in their license terms requiring the user be allowed to modify, compile, and install any application they want on their own, without requiring any crypto signatures.

Without the "cannot install your own app restrictions"; the app store is just a convenient installation program. Many GPL software applications use proprietary installers, such as InstallShield or MSI based installers, without source code provided to the installer; without GPL-violating DRM on the phone, the app store is just a fancy installer program that can install files directly from an URL or remote location.

Re:Not incompatible

[Wrath0fb0b]

What's in need of a fix are the fact that phones are locked down to prevent the user from modifying and installing any application they want, without crypto signing and the manufacturer's approval.

The GPLv2 does not require that devices honor modifications, only that the user is free to download the source and the binary and modify and redistribute them. That was the entire lesson of TiVo and the motivation for GPLv3.

I would have thought that a reasonable way to solve this would be for a GPLv2 application distributed in the App Store to have a link to a web page where you can download the source and the binary. There would be a sort of philosophical question, given that you can't access the copy that's on your phone but I don't think the GPLv2 requires such pedantic exactitude. So long as you can get a copy of the source used to build that binary, I think the license is met.

And, of course, if you don't want software that you write to be used in such a fashion, use the GPLv3. I don't find anything wrong with that at all -- the author ought to decide based on what he or she feels is right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization

Re:Not incompatible

[Kenja]

Lets see. Check the check box allowing third party app sources. There! I cracked the complex lock down system!

Course thats for Android phones...

Re:Not incompatible

[sco08y]

the incompatibility between the App Store's (and Windows Marketplace's) terms of service on one hand and GPLv2 on the other is a problem in need of a fix.'"

No, the app store model does not need a fix, because it's not inherently incompatible. Source code can still be provided, with download instructions.

What's in need of a fix are the fact that phones are locked down to prevent the user from modifying and installing any application they want, without crypto signing and the manufacturer's approval.

App store providers can fix it if they insert a clause in their license terms requiring the user be allowed to modify, compile, and install any application they want
on their own, without requiring any crypto signatures.

So, anyone can sign up to be an iOS developer for $99 a year, and then test their modified version to their heart's content. They can then do ad hoc distribution to 100 others. That's iOS development in a nutshell.

I'm trying to see how Apple could relax those restrictions without iOS being slammed with malware. If anyone other than Apple can sign an app for general use, iOS will be slammed. If you can sign an app for only your account, it's hardly better than the current situation.

The only realistic way of beating malware is white-listing, and the App Store model is the only realistic way to do white-listing. The alternative, which is the state of the typical PC, is that your system is constantly owned by someone else. So it seems that most users are going to be owned, whether it's by a big corporation or a script kiddie, it doesn't make much difference in terms of freedom.

Re:Not incompatible

[sco08y]

The only realistic way of beating malware is white-listing, and the App Store model is the only realistic way to do white-listing.

Having said that, you could have an oligarchy of white-listers instead of the Apple monarchy. But that's like certificate authorities: all I know when I visit foocorp.com is that it really is the site of Foo Corp. and that they really did shell out $50 for a business license.

Re:Not incompatible

[Dwonis]

The only realistic way of beating malware is white-listing

No, you just have to design an operating system where beating malware is actually a design goal, rather than an afterthought.

Re:Not incompatible

[mysidia]

So, anyone can sign up to be an iOS developer [apple.com] for $99 a year, and then test their modified version [apple.com] to their heart's content.

If Apple modified maters so anyone could be an iOS developer without paying extra to Apple, without contacting Apple, without signing up or executing another agreement with Apple, then the software could be GPL compliant.

The GPL does not allow additional restrictions to be added to compliant software (for example, a requirement that you contact the software author and ask for permission before you can modify and load modified code, would make the software GPL-incompatible).

Re:Not incompatible

[mysidia]

I'm trying to see how Apple could relax those restrictions without iOS being slammed with malware. If anyone other than Apple can sign an app for general use, iOS will be slammed. If you can sign an app for only your account, it's hardly better than the current situation.

They need to allow a way to load an App with no signing at all; to avoid the GPLv3 requirement that secret keys be published.

They can print all the warnings they want to dissuade non-technical users from using the facility to install malicious software on the phone.

They can bury the option and require typing something or popping the cover off the phone and flipping a switch.

My point is... they can satisfy the GPL requirements and allow users to tinker: all without risking that a clueless user will naively activate 'unsigned code installation' and shoot themself in the foot, with the tinkerers' GPL-compliance backdoor.

Re:Not incompatible

[Microlith]

So, anyone can sign up to be an iOS developer for $99 a year, and then test their modified version to their heart's content. They can then do ad hoc distribution to 100 others. That's iOS development in a nutshell.

That's just putting up an arbitrary wall to accessing the platform, and the ad-hoc distributions are time limited.

I'm trying to see how Apple could relax those restrictions without iOS being slammed with malware.

By making the ability to load unsigned packages a touch more difficult to enable by default? By requiring it be done from PC, or on bootup via a keypress and prompt? Justifying lock down in the name of "preventing malware" just screams "I want them to lock down my PC too!"

If anyone other than Apple can sign an app for general use, iOS will be slammed.

Not if you make users jump through a couple hoops.

If you can sign an app for only your account, it's hardly better than the current situation.

And you still have Apple placing restrictions on the end-user of the software. The only thing they can do is provide a way for users to say "GTFO" but they won't, because they want you in their store. So you're left with jailbreaking and EULA violations.

Make no mistake, Apple and Microsoft are doing this because they see the mobile space as the next big area of computing, and don't want to repeat the "mistake" of having computers open to everyone again. They want the mobile realm to be owned, end to end, by them, and to force anyone that wants in to play their games. Rest assured, FOSS is totally unwelcome in their worlds.

Re:Not incompatible

[shutdown -p now]

I would have thought that a reasonable way to solve this would be for a GPLv2 application distributed in the App Store to have a link to a web page where you can download the source and the binary.

You're almost there. The problem here is that, when user downloads an app from the App Store, Apple is acting as a distributor, and thus GPL terms apply to them. And here's what it has to say on providing source code:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) ...
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

So, even if a GPLv2 an app submitted to the Store includes a link to the source, or an offer to distribute the source on demand made by the original author, Apple cannot merely delegate that link/offer because they redistribute apps commercially (even if the app itself is free, the author still has to pay to get a developer account, so Apple makes money either way). They would either have to provide their own offer to redistribute the source on demand, or somehow host it alongside the apps or inside them such that it'd be accessible to the end user. Either way, this requires Apple to have the source in the first place, and places a burden on them to implement its redistribution - something which they probably simply aren't willing to do.

Re:Not incompatible

[tlhIngan]

The GPL does not allow additional restrictions to be added to compliant software (for example, a requirement that you contact the software author and ask for permission before you can modify and load modified code, would make the software GPL-incompatible).

FALSE.

The GPLv3 states that. GPLv2 only states that you make the source code available.

It's called TiVoization after TiVo, Inc., did that by releasing full source code to the LInux they run, but you cannot run anything you built from that code on an unmodified TiVo.

It's also why there's so many GPLv3 licenses available, Affero being the one used for web services because anyone can take a GPLv2 source code, modify it up the wazoo, and stick it running on a webserver, without having to distribute source code at all. Affero requires that simply offering the software output forces release of the source code, so web services use this so changes can be released.

GPLv3 came about because of web services, TiVoization, etc. Heck, GPLv2 is compatible with many app stores, though preferably a means of including the source with the file would be best, otherwise you'd have the same issues that all app stores have (Android, iOS, Windows Phone, Ovi, etc) - they don't distribute the source at all with the binary (this may or may not be a problem, depending on how you interpret the store).

In fact, TFS is wrong as well - Microsoft explicitly bans GPLv3, not GPLv2. The two licenses are not compatible (GPLv2+ can be used in GPLv3, but GPLv2 cannot be used with GPLv3 because v3 adds possible "restrictions" to use of the GPLv2 code) with each other, and the GPLv3 is not simply an upgrade to GPLv2. The only real similarities they have are "GPL" and the need to share source code.

GPLv3 is incompatible with Microsoft's and Apple's app store model, as it would be with say, Amazon's Android marketplace as well.

Re:Not incompatible

[sco08y]

So, anyone can sign up to be an iOS developer [apple.com] for $99 a year, and then test their modified version [apple.com] to their heart's content.

If Apple modified maters so anyone could be an iOS developer without paying extra to Apple, without contacting Apple,
without signing up or executing another agreement with Apple, then the software could be GPL compliant.

The GPL does not allow additional restrictions to be added to compliant software (for example, a requirement that you contact the software author and ask for permission before you can modify and load modified code, would make the software GPL-incompatible).

Are we talking GPL v2? "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."

What restrictions am *I* placing on the recipients? I'm not charging the fees or requiring they sign up with Apple. People have released software on Mac OS for ages, even though, technically, you have to agree to a EULA to get Xcode.

If we're talking v3, then under section 6, you're installing on an iOS device, which is most certainly a User Product. You have to include Installation Information, which "means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made."

Notably, though, it doesn't say that modification and installation has to be free. What kills the App Store is the following clause: "Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided, in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented (and with an implementation available to the public in source code form), and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying."

I'm not even sure what that means. Is it just the download and install portion? Or do they expect someone managing any kind of software update feature to keep source implementation of their whole datacenter constantly available?

Re:Not incompatible

[mysidia]

The GPLv3 states that. GPLv2 only states that you make the source code available.

FALSE

The GPLv2 states very clearly:

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 GPL v2 already prohibits adding restrictions. The GPL v3 merely elaborates and explicitly identifies DRM and crypto techniques as introducing restrictions that are prohibited by the GPL, for purposes of clarification; they are not mentioned specifically by the GPL v2, but that does not mean it is allowed to impose additional restrictions when distributing GPL v2 licensed software.

It's called TiVoization after TiVo, Inc., did that by releasing full source code to the LInux they run, but you cannot run anything you built from that code on an unmodified TiVo.

What TiVo did would be a GPL violation in regards to the Linux kernel, had they not been very clever and implemented all their software and custom filesystem in user space.

Even if the Linux kernel had been released under the GPLv3, they could still accomplish TiVoization without a GPL violation. Modified GPL kernels don't get you very far, when all the system drivers, filesystems, hardware I/O devices are controlled in user space.

Re:Not incompatible

[Andtalath]

Distributing source code that can be compiled into a functioning program you mean?
That's the entire point.

Until phones allow you to compile and run the compiled software (not sure which do and which don't, I assume iPhone doesn't) or there is another way to compile for it with said source code, no, it isn't following the intention (maybe the license as written, uncertain) of GPLv2.

Re:Not incompatible

[SuricouRaven]

"What TiVo did would be a GPL violation in regards to the Linux kernel, had they not been very clever and implemented all their software and custom filesystem in user space."

They could have written it as a loadable module instead. Merely using headers is (IIRC) not enough to bring something under the GPL. The result would have been the same, legally.

Re:Not incompatible

[Anonymous Coward]

I would just like to point out something from your own quoted text:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

You don't have to abide by A B _and_ C.
You only have to abide by ONE of A B _or_ C

In other words, the parent suggesting Apple go the route of using B, means anything you want from C is irrelevant as long as B is being met.

B also does not have any commercial restriction on it, so Apple is free to choose that option. Again that would make C irrelevant.

Grandparent was correct in that providing a link (a written offer) would be just fine for GPLv2.

Re:Not incompatible

[dissy]

You are correct in that it does not follow the intention of the license.

Unfortunately it is following the letter of the law, and legally following the license, thus there is nothing legally that can be done.

This is why the GPLv3 was created, to fix that legal loophole.

However, one tricky bit about declaring the intention of the license is that only the author(s) of the software can really define what was intended.

The authors don't seem to mind this legal loophole existing, since even their newer versions are still GPLv2. At least up to version 1.1.7 anyway.
They have had many released versions between the app stores 0.9.6 version and 1.1.7 (and I believe their newest version as well, as I haven't heard about them changing licenses) to upgrade to GPLv3, but they haven't.

So I don't think the authors mind, judging by their actions.

Re:Not incompatible

[shutdown -p now]

I believe a simple link is not a valid "written offer". Nonetheless, according to FSF itself, rather than putting the source "in the same place" as binary, you can provide a link there to a source hosted elsewhere (per GPLv2 FAQ). But there is a catch - the obligation to redistribute is still on Apple, so if they use the link that app submitter has provided, and he later takes it down (or it permanently goes down for any other reason), Apple is now not complying with GPL (and therefore infringing on up until the moment they become aware of it and take the app down). Even more subtle, if the linked file changes such that it no longer corresponds to exact source used to compile the binaries, then Apple is again infringing.

Alternatively they could download the source and then host it on their own servers. But then they need the infrastructure for that, and they also need to verify that source exactly corresponds to binary during app approving. It's all definitely possible, but it's a hassle for them, and they probably think that it's not worth the benefit.

Re:Not incompatible

[raynet]

Why not include the source in the app? I am sure you can "unzip" the application package and access the source if the files are there. Or add an about page in the app which allows you to email the source from the app to yourself.

Re:Not incompatible

[Anonymous Coward]

What's in need of a fix are the fact that phones are locked down to prevent the user from modifying and installing any application they want, without crypto signing and the manufacturer's approval.

There is nothing wrong with solid crypto security. This is am excellent feature and I wish I could set my Mac/Windows/Linux machines to refuse all binary code execution unless it's signed.

If you have the source code, and you know enough to be mucking around with untwisted third party code, then installing an app on your phone by compiling and self signing in Xcode is trivial. This should be enough to satisfy GPL, it should not be against the GPL to have SSL style third-party-signed crypto for "easy to use" code installs.

If you are self signing your code, there is no app store terms/conditions. You can do anything you sant to your battery life ad security.

In my opinion, the only problems are:

  * GPL is not compatible with apple's license, and for many peojects it is hard to fet permission from all the copyright holders to bypass GPL
  * apple charges $99/year for the tools to self-sign code to run on your phone.

The former is a non-issue for small projects, the latter would be a non-issue if jail breaking was easier and more stable.

Re:Not incompatible

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! How clever of you. Maybe that's why Google recently had to reach out to people's phones and forcefully remove malware that was installed due to this wonderous 'open' world Android lives in.

Remember a few years back when someone discovered that the Apple had the ability to remotely remove apps from a user's device, and the entire world exploded from the protests of 'draconian control' from the FOSS groups? They've (Apple) never used it, however it's amazing how accepting those same groups are when Google performs the same task (multiple times btw.) -- and the statements are now 'oh, they're (Google) just looking after their users.'

Re:Not incompatible

[shutdown -p now]

They'd need to provide some kind of in-app screen, or something in the App Store, explaining the procedure. Or else a "written notice" saying that they'll do on request.

But, again, this would require them to verify that source code, as provided by app author, matches the binaries exactly.

Limitations of the app stores

[malevo]

Isn't it a limitation of the Apple and Microsoft app stores? The Ubuntu apt store works fine with GPL software.

There, I fixed it without duct tape!

[Anonymous Coward]

My fix is not buying Apple or Microsoft products. Not owning or using either eliminates the conflict with GPL.

not our problem

[tonytraductor]

The limitation, or problem, is not that of open source. The limitation/problem is that of the app store.

Re:not our problem

[LodCrappo]

Completely agree. Open source software has been around much longer than these apps stores, and has been usable on practically all if not all general purpose computing platforms prior to the introduction of the app store scheme. Additionally, the world's most popular smartphone platform has shown that it is quite possible to allow GPL software in an app store model, while MS at least has taken steps to specifically forbid it. This is a self imposed limitation for the app store owners, and while it is entirely their decision to make, any negative effects are also soley their responsibility.

Then buy what instead?

[tepples]

You recommended not buying any computing appliance with lockdown comparable to an iPod touch, iPhone, or iPad. But say I want to buy a device for playing video games, in genres other than FPS or RTS, on the living room TV with a housemate or visiting friends. Microsoft's device has lockdown comparable to Apple's. Nintendo's device and Sony's device have even more restrictive lockdown, and any jailbreaks that do exist will evaporate in the next system software update. What make and model would you recommend, and which video games would you recommend to play on it? Or do you just recommend doing without video games?

Re:Then buy what instead?

[LodCrappo]

If there was a massive existing library of excellent, best of breed open source games which worked fine on your console but were not allowed by the manufacturer for licensing reasons, I could see people being upset about it.

Re:Then buy what instead?

[Anthony Mouse]

A) You can still buy an Android phone even if you buy a Wii.
B) They have a device called a "PC" which is mostly open and runs a lot of video games.

Re:Then buy what instead?

[Jessified]

#firstworldproblems

Re:Then buy what instead?

[aliquis]

What does video games have to do with open source licenses anyway?

If you want to play good games get a console, they won't be GPL licensed anyway. Or well, except old graphic engines but you aren't likely to play those on a console anyway.

If you want to run the open source stuff then get a PC for them. I doubt there's a limited amount of GPL games for the PS3 anyway.

Re:Then buy what instead?

[tepples]

If you want to play good games get a console [...] If you want to run the open source stuff then get a PC for them

Why is it the case that people must buy these devices in pairs: one for only major label works and one for only indie works? Why is it not possible to design one device for both?

Re:Then buy what instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

> A) You can still buy an Android phone even if you buy a Wii.
How does this even slightly relate to the original comment? The Wii has a restrictive App Store, thus can't be bought according to the original post.

> B) They have a device called a "PC" which is mostly open and runs a lot of video games.
Right. Being 'mostly' open means not installing Windows, leaving you with a Linux derivative. Thus, 99.95% of available games you want to play aren't available to you. Enjoy Tux Racer.

Re:Then buy what instead?

[Anthony Mouse]

How does this even slightly relate to the original comment?

The GP criticized the idea of not buying devices with restrictive app stores by presenting consoles with restrictive app stores as something without an adequate open alternative. Assuming arguendo that that criticism is valid, it still doesn't negative the principle: If you OMFG HAVE TO buy a Wii so you can play whatever game you can't live without, you can decide that that is more important to you than avoiding restrictive app stores. But when it comes time to buy a phone or a music player or whatever, they're not gaming devices so the criticism doesn't apply and you should still avoid the ones with restrictive app stores.

Right. Being 'mostly' open means not installing Windows, leaving you with a Linux derivative.

Being "mostly" open means you can run anything you damn well please on it, including Windows (in a VM or otherwise) to play whatever games you like.

Use a more liberal OSS license

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution is to abandon GPL/GPLv2 code. If you want to release an app that is both Open Source and can comply with the various App Store regulations, just use an Apache, BSD/MIT or other more liberal OSS license; or even LGPL code. The problem is the GPL/GPLv2 imposes restrictions that are designed to hinder code usage in ways that are, in many circumstances, not really an issue. But when the code has to mingle with other licensing schemes those additional restrictions become a huge pain in the ass. The GPL/GPLv2 is for Free Software zealots who have proven to be less than agreeable with the rest of the OSS community.

Re:Rumors

[Anonymous Coward]

Beware -- this is a goatse link.

Where do you get that out of GPL v3?

[SuperKendall]

No, the alleged issue -- the biggest, anyways, there's a few more -- is that you can't redistribute the binary (well, you can to jailbroken devices or developers who can run codesign themselves, but in the general case you can't). Source doesn't come into it at all; anyone who claims source distribution is an issue should be gently corrected

To me this seems exactly backwards. The whole section six of the GPLv3 is all about various forms of binary distribution can provide a way to get to the source. The GPL doesn't really care about the binary, the whole point of the thing is to get people source so that they can modify and make new versions.

There's nothing at all about the App Store that prevents this, as long as your provide all of the code for your project somewhere everyone can get to.

Since there is no way in hell ... and nor should there be, anyone who is sane enough to recognize security concerns attendant on any responsible smartphone provider will accept ... that Apple will ever allow unsigned binaries access to their devices

You don't need unsigned binaries since any developer could build and run the source. Just as the GPL does not require that you buy a computer for someone wanting to compile your source, it does not mandate that the person acquiring the source does not have to buy whatever is required to compile it.

Re:Where do you get that out of GPL v3?

[Snocone]

"There's nothing at all about the App Store that prevents this, as long as your provide all of the code for your project somewhere everyone can get to."

You appear to utterly misunderstand the FSF's position. From the PC Magazine article on the VLC flap:

"The GPL gives Apple permission to distribute this software through the App Store. All they would have to do is follow the license's conditions to help keep the software free," wrote the Free Software Federation's Brett Smith earlier this year. "Instead, Apple has decided that they prefer to impose Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) and proprietary legal terms on all programs in the App Store."

You see "source" mentioned anywhere there? Nope. That's because it's not about the source. It's about restricting distribution to signed binaries, and about reserving the rights to remote kill malware and suchlike. There is no issue with source, as my Wolf3D example shows nicely. The issue is that the FSF refuses to accept that a consumer device capable of exploiting the user's personal and financial information really does need to have its access curated, and although sure Apple's current policies could use significant tweaking, there's no way that they can ever both satisfy the FSF and be responsible to their nontechnical users.

Parent is link to Goatse

[Anonymous Coward]

'nuff said.

GPLv2 is not incompatible...

[aristotle-dude]

The issue is not GPLv2 because its wording is silent on the issues that people are claiming incompatibility. GPLv3 is incompatible because it has explicit language which is unfriendly towards commercial use so it can prevent third parties from publishing in the Appstore. Neither GPLv2 or GPLv3 trump the copyright of the author or authors. When all authors agree to distribute on the app store, then there is no problem. The problem arrises when one of the contributors disagrees and exerts their copyright to block submission to the app store. It is a copyright issue only. The GPLV2 itself is not the stumbling block. Please stop spreading FUD whether it be in support of the FSF's own FUD or against the GPL. It is just a license and it does not trump copyright nor is it a living document which is why it is versioned.

Let me put this in as simply as possible. No license be it GPLv2, GPLv3 can prevent an application from being published on the appstore by the author or authors. The incompatibility in GPLV3 only applies to third parties publishing an application because the GPL has no power to remove the original copyrights of the author(s).

Re:GPLv2 is not incompatible...

[hedwards]

That's bullshit. While the GPL does not prevent authors from putting it into the Appstore, if Apple can't comply with the GPL terms, Apple can't redistribute the programs. The license to redistribute the code or software is derived from the GPL, not from the party that owns the copyright. Since they presumably chose to offer it under the terms of the GPL.
 
 

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

This bit here is what's causing the trouble. Apple adds ToS to purchases through the Apple store which covers anything that's sold through their Appstore. The GPL absolutely does not allow for this sort of amendment to the distribution rights and it clearly states so in various parts of the license.

Re:GPLv2 is not incompatible...

[SETIGuy]

Actually that is an unresolved legal question. Suppose I write an app and offer it through the App Store licensed as GPLv2 and with the download provide appropriate license, copyright and download information. If I haven't modified the license, it states that the user may distribute the downloaded binary provided they offer to provide source. The App Store terms of service say he may not do so. Suppose he somehow cracks and distributes it and Apple goes after him. And he counter sues both me and Apple. Am I guilty for violating a legal agreement (to allow redistribution of the binary) between me an the user? Probably. I'm sure whatever agreement an app writer signs with Apple indemnifies them in such cases. In which case I pay damages to the user and to Apple and any legal costs they have.

Re:GPLv2 is not incompatible...

[Anonymous Coward]

No license be it GPLv2, GPLv3 can prevent an application from being published on the appstore by the author or authors. The incompatibility in GPLV3 only applies to third parties publishing an application because the GPL has no power to remove the original copyrights of the author(s).

Unfortunately nearly all of the best GPL projects have so many copyright holders, it is almost impossible to contact them all, and likely at least one will disagree. It only takes one.

So in practice, it is impossible to distribute a large GPL project in any way except as specifically outlined in the GPL.

Our GPL project has several tens of thousands of users, all on macs, and is far better than the only other similar app on the app store. I'm sure we would grow our userbase by an order of magnitude if we were on the app store in addition to google code and our own website. And this would translate to more contributors (all of our users are programmers). But we, and our users, are missing out on those contributions because someone 10 years ago decided to use GPL.

There is even a very real threat someone will put a MIT licensed app similar to ours on the store, and due to extra publicity get more contributions, and become a better app than ours. It would be a shame to see tens of thousands of hours by 50+ people go from the coolest tool available to a memory.

With almost any other open source license, distributing on an app store is fine, so long as you also have the source code somewhere.

Re:GPLv2 is not incompatible...

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL2 is the stumbling block unless the author is doing it, or in the absence of a general waiver from the author. This is a significant stumbling block given the reality of how free software incorporates other libraries, and indeed submissions from multiple people.

If it was compatible with the GPL2 then they wouldn't need the author's explicit permission. They could avail of the general GPL2 license offer like anyone else.

The TOS of the app store are a restriction on the user above and beyond the GPL2, ergo it's incompatible. It's only "not incompatible" when it doesn't apply at all.

BS article

[Anonymous Coward]

What a load of BS and FOSS scaremongering. Providing the source will allow users to build the apps they want and upload them under their own dev key or to their nicely jailbroken phones. Is it that difficult to provide a link to downloadable source? No. Stupid article.

Try paying attention to the LEGALITY

[SuperKendall]

You appear to utterly misunderstand the FSF's position. From the PC Magazine article on the VLC flap:

Well excuse me for studying the legal language of the GPL instead of the "position" of the FSF.

I mean, I've only been carefully reading through variants of the GPL and thinking about the wording for 20 years but whatever.

You see "source" mentioned anywhere there? Nope. That's because it's not about the source.

It might not be in the "position" but far more relevant is what an application must do to abide by the GPL.

I know what the FSF is saying, I just don't see it in the license which in fact talks at great length about SOURCE. And the point of the GPL is that you have access to the SOURCE. Free as in speech, remember? And I did in fact mention section six, which you didn't bother to read whatsoever I gather? Because that's where it goes on and on about SOURCE in relation to the binary, which it treats as an afterthought.

Can you (or since you are unwilling, anyone else) point to where in the license the FSF position is codified in legal language instead of baboon like posturing (and know here that I am a card-carrying member of the FSF, can you say the same?)

Re:Try paying attention to the LEGALITY

[Snocone]

"Can you (or since you are unwilling, anyone else) point to where in the license the FSF position is codified in legal language instead of baboon like posturing"

I quoted the "baboon like posturing" of the Free Software Federation's Brett Smith, which is the reason VLC is not in the App Store today.

Or perhaps you have an explanation of why VLC is not in the App Store today that is not reliant on the "baboon like posturing" of the Free Software Federation's Brett Smith? Absent that, I will take his "baboon like posturing" and the consequent removal of VLC from the App Store as being conclusive evidence of the actual issues at hand, and your blathering as of no consequence.

Re:Try paying attention to the LEGALITY

[larry bagina]

1. Free Software Foundation
2. Brett Smith is not a lawyer.
3. The reason VLC isn't on the app store is because Rémi Denis-Courmont filed a copyright infringement notice.

Re:Try paying attention to the LEGALITY

[julesh]

Can you (or since you are unwilling, anyone else) point to where in the license the FSF position is codified in legal language

AIUI, the issue is with these sections of GPLv2:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above
[...]
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.

As I understand the FSF's position, the App Store terms prevent somebody who has received an executable under section 3 from redistributing it further under section 3, and thus is a violation of section 6. Source doesn't enter into the situation, because it's all about section 3 distribution.

What about Apache or other license?

[Jane Q. Public]

Is the iOS app store compatible with other open source licenses? I am curious, because I was working on a project I was planning to port to iOS. Maybe I'll have to stick to Android, if I can't find an open-source way to license it for iPhone.

Re:What about Apache or other license?

[jo_ham]

Yes, there's already many open source apps on the App Store. You can even use the GPLv2 if you like - as much as the FSF would have you believe, Apple changed the ToS to make it more friendly towards it.

Alternatively there are plenty of other OSS licences you can use.

Here are just a few:

http://maniacdev.com/2010/06/35-open-source-iphone-app-store-apps-updated-with-10-new-apps/

LLVM is not the default

[SuperKendall]

Although LLVM now ships with XCode, a combination of LLVM and GCC is still the default compiler for new iPhone projects. LLVM for the whole compile chain is an option but not the default.

Wrong, two other ways

[SuperKendall]

Completely different. The Mac App Store is simply another way of getting software on your Mac. On iOS, the App Store is the only way of getting software.

That is untrue. The first way is jailbreaking; but lets ignore that for the moment.

The second way is compiling and installing yourself. Which is something you would be able to do with the developer tools, which you would need anyway once you get access to the source.

Anyone who can make use of the source can also get a build onto the device, in two different but equally effective ways.

Re:Wrong, two other ways

[Microlith]

The first way is jailbreaking; but lets ignore that for the moment.

Yes, lets. Because it forces you to violate an EULA you agree to when you start using the device. You shouldn't be forced to violate a contract (of any kind) to be free to do as you wish.

The second way is compiling and installing yourself. Which is something you would be able to do with the developer tools, which you would need anyway once you get access to the source.

The developer tools themselves do not allow you to load them. You must pay the yearly $99 fee to load them on your phone, and even then it is a limited "beta" signature that will eventually expire (90 days, I believe.) So even then Apple is placing restrictions on your use of the software.

Anyone who can make use of the source can also get a build onto the device, in two different but equally effective ways.

I hardly call forcing people to violate an EULA, and forcing them to pay $99 to load software they compile themselves on a device they own "effective" or even remotely reasonable.

Re:Wrong, two other ways

[The End Of Days]

Idealism is so cute and sad, like a retarded baby

Re:Wrong, two other ways

[Sam Douglas]

Nice ad hominem. Some retarded babies aren't cute at all.

Re:Wrong, two other ways

[qpqp]

1st. Noone cares about EULAs outside of the UK and US. If they contradict existing law, they're invalid, even if they ask you to jump out of the window, when you "void that warranty". 2nd. You DON'T have to pay the yearly 99$ fee to load them on *your* iDevice. 3rd. It's a perfectly effective and reasonable way to download source, launch the IDE and compile + use it on your development machine. When you want to publish your changes, THEN you pay the 100 bucks, and even then, there are ways around it.

Re:Wrong, two other ways

[Hognoxious]

You must pay the yearly $99 fee to load them on your phone

Seriously? If I develop my own software in my own time and for my own reasons I have to pay a hundred bucks turtleneck tax just to put it on my own phone?

Fuck that for a game of tin soldiers.

Why does that make a difference?

[SuperKendall]

The developer option would probably be fine if you didn't have to pay anything or buy a Mac to exercise it.

I'm not seeing why that is the sticking point, when you have to buy a computer at all to compile anything. Buying a Mac or a developer account (which BTW is not 100% required since you could also jailbreak and deploy that way) seems like variations on a theme instead of a major difference.

Re:Why does that make a difference?

[Anthony Mouse]

I'm not seeing why that is the sticking point, when you have to buy a computer at all to compile anything.

It's a sticking point because it adds a major unnecessary restriction. 90% computers aren't Macs, and you're excluding all those people even though they meet all of the inherent requirements for compiling the code.

And jailbreaking doesn't count because it's not formally permitted so you can't get it past the lawyers. It would be a different story if Apple officially accepted it as a method for installing software.

Single-player devices

[tepples]

But say I want to buy a device for playing video games, in genres other than FPS or RTS, on the living room TV with a housemate or visiting friends.

You can still buy an Android phone even if you buy a Wii.

Android-powered phones are single-player. Sure, some newer Android-powered devices have TV output, but I'm not aware of anything in the Android API allowing gamepad input; if there is something, it's well HID-den. Even if a game supports WLAN play, is the host expected to buy phones and copies of each game for players 2, 3, and 4 to use?

They have a device called a "PC" which is mostly open and runs a lot of video games.

I'm aware of this. But most developers of PC games appear to be under the impression that the PC is single-player, ignoring the possibility of four gamepads and an HDTV monitor. Even if a game supports LAN play, is the host expected to buy phones and copies of each game for players 2, 3, and 4 to use?

Re:Single-player devices

[Anthony Mouse]

Even if a game supports WLAN play, is the host expected to buy phones and copies of each game for players 2, 3, and 4 to use?

Of course not. Each player can supply their own device and copy of the game like any other LAN party.

That's actually a pretty good idea: Using a touchscreen phone as a game controller and then hooking one of the phones up to a TV, with multiplayer over 802.11. I hope that catches on.

But most developers of PC games appear to be under the impression that the PC is single-player, ignoring the possibility of four gamepads and an HDTV monitor.

That's because it mostly is, or at least the usual model is that each player has their own PC. But what's wrong with that? It's easier than ever because modern laptops are fast enough to play almost all PC games, so you don't even have to lug a bunch of desktops and CRTs into the same room if everybody has their own laptop.

Re:Single-player devices

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm aware of this. But most developers of PC games appear to be under the impression that the PC is single-player, ignoring the possibility of four gamepads and an HDTV monitor. Even if a game supports LAN play, is the host expected to buy phones and copies of each game for players 2, 3, and 4 to use?

You read slashdot on a Saturday night, and you think your going to get four "friends" to come over to your house to play video games? ROFL!

Re:Single-player devices

[healyp]

" it's well HID-den"

Ha, I see what you did there.

Re:Single-player devices

[tepples]

Each player can supply their own device and copy of the game like any other LAN party.

I have Quake *. He has Unreal *. How do we play together? Or how does mom afford two to four copies of each game, one for each gamer in the household? A console game costing 1*$60 is cheaper than a PC game costing 4*$30.

That's because it mostly is, or at least the usual model is that each player has their own PC. But what's wrong with that?

What's wrong is that it's more expensive for little benefit. In a game that does not rely on hiding information from the other player, such as a fighting game as opposed to an RTS, what is the tangible benefit of one PC for each player?

It's easier than ever because modern laptops are fast enough to play almost all PC games

Even if the laptop comes with Intel GMA graphics? Parents tend to buy laptops for their children first for doing homework, and laptops that can do only homework are far cheaper than laptops that can do both homework and games. And unlike a desktop PC, a laptop can't easily be upgraded by adding a video card to the existing system.

Re:Single-player devices

[Anthony Mouse]

I have Quake *. He has Unreal *. How do we play together?

Planning. You run into the same situation where you have an xbox and your friend has a Wii -- you can't play together over the internet, and he can't bring his Wii controller to your house and use it on your xbox. So either you plan ahead and both get the same game, or you spend more money buying another copy. Also, you can play one of the games like Starcraft that has a spawn edition for specifically this reason.

Or how does mom afford two to four copies of each game, one for each gamer in the household? A console game costing 1*$60 is cheaper than a PC game costing 4*$30.

You're assuming the console-optimized household. Most people don't have exactly four kids. If you have two then the PC game is the same cost and you save the price of buying the console. If you have more than four (or whatever the single console max is) then you need two consoles with two televisions etc. which tacks on hundreds of dollars, which would have to be amortized over a large number of games and you don't get to count the ones that have a spawn edition or that benefit from hiding information from all the other players or that not everyone likes and so you don't have to buy a copy for everyone.

I'm not saying a console is never more cost effective if all you care about is money or if you always have exactly four players, but it's hardly the only viable alternative.

In a game that does not rely on hiding information from the other player, such as a fighting game as opposed to an RTS, what is the tangible benefit of one PC for each player?

Turn it around: Other than the cost considerations above, what does it harm, if you already have the PCs?

Even if the laptop comes with Intel GMA graphics?

You can still play a lot of older games. And going forward the cost-conscious parent is going to be picking up Bobcat-based laptops with AMD/ATI graphics anyway. Plus, it's a simple fact that people who don't plan end up spending more money -- if you want to play games on your laptop, buy one with a GPU capable of playing them.

Correction on marketshare

[SuperKendall]

Android market share now exceeds iOS market share. And that's with Apple still riding the first to market advantage on the iPad

It is my understanding that if you think of it in those terms, the numbers of total iOS devices when you include iPad and Touch units have Apple still leading in marketshare.

Also until this year the iPhone was carrier limited in the US so the device marketshare may change somewhat this year.

Re:Correction on marketshare

[LodCrappo]

It's difficult to get exact numbers on a regular basis, at least I haven't found a source. On Jan 18 2011, Apple announce that 160 million iOS devices had been sold in total to date. On Feb 15 Google announced that 350,000 Android devices were coming online per day. It would seem that gives Android a fair chance of adding more devices this year than Apple has gathered in the history of iOS, but of course Apple is moving more units than ever too. Given their relative rates of growth, it seems inevitable that Android will surpass iOS in total users soon, if it hasn't already, not sure anyone can be much more specific than that.

  The addition of Verizon hasn't seemed to make much difference, but who really knows, you can find articles claiming the sales are incredible and others claiming the sales are awful. VZ and Apple aren't saying anything, which may be telling us something.. http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/02/26/verizon-still-mum-on-iphone-sales/

Re:Correction on marketshare

[Anthony Mouse]

It is my understanding that if you think of it in those terms, the numbers of total iOS devices when you include iPad and Touch units have Apple still leading in marketshare.

I guess you're right, apparently when these companies publish market share they're comparing Android to iPhone rather than iOS. But the trend lines are still clear.

Also until this year the iPhone was carrier limited in the US so the device marketshare may change somewhat this year.

I'm sure it won't hurt them, but it's going to make the numbers hard to compare in the short term. There will be a lot of people who have been waiting to replace their AT&T iPhone 3 with a Verizon iPhone 4, which will cause a temporary spike in sales, but that just results in more iPhones in landfills rather than increasing the number in the hands of people, so it's going to be hard to disambiguate that from the number of customers who wouldn't have an iPhone if it wasn't available on Verizon.

What's really interesting is that if you look at the numbers, both iOS and Android have been gaining ground, iOS slowly and Android quickly, but at the expense of RIM and WM rather than each other. And that trend is likely to continue, i.e. Android is going to keep growing but (for now) not really at the expense of iOS.

In any event, the implication that nobody is buying Android devices is demonstrably false -- depending how you measure they're either only slightly behind Apple or are already the market leader.

Correction on misquote

[SuperKendall]

Ben franklin is rolling over in his grave now and your misquote. The full quote goes:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety

With the iPhone you are giving up zero liberty since it only ships closed and you can open it if you like and have a need to.

The real problem with your version of the quote is the omission of TEMPORARY. For most users moving to iOS is not a "little temporary safety", it is defacto a safer platform to operate from, as we have seen even in these early days of mobile security issues. Apple has more (read: any) safegaurds around who or what can go in the App Store than does Android. The fact is that prevention ahead of time is always percentage-wise ahead of playing cleanup for disasters you find after the fact. The fact is that Apple has removed a whole vector of attack (Flash) from the web which again lowers the percentage risk of a successful attack.

That is not temporary. That is a permanent advancement for the state of security in computing, and I wish not to simply move the status quo of PC security forward into the next mass realm of computing.

Re:Correction on misquote

[LodCrappo]

Ok, forget Ben. I can't say it as simply, but I'll say it in my own words.

"Trading freedom for safety is a bad deal, and I want no part of it. To think that citizens of a county where thousands have died to create and protect our freedom would so easily give up the right to do what they want to do with a device they own in exchange for an illusion of safety created by a company who's only true motive is profit (and rightly so, not blaming them for that part) makes me sick."

-Lod, 2011

Re:Correction on misquote

[SuricouRaven]

"you can open it if you like and have a need to."

If you don't mind violating a contract, forgoing access to future updates which might include vital security patches and running the risk of bricking your very expensive phone if you screw up. That's if you can do it at all - it's still hacking, and given enough time Apple might come up with a phone that can't be hacked at all short of soldering something inside it.

Re:Correction on misquote

[SuperKendall]

Trading freedom for safety is a bad deal, and I want no part of it....

Selling someones safety because you want a little more freedom that you could have had otherwise anyway, strikes me as eminently selfish and I want no part of THAT. We have all been down that road and seen the dark place it leads to.

Let those who wish to be safe be so when it impacts your own freedoms not one iota.

Re:Correction on misquote

[Americano]

You know, not to put too fine a point on it or anything, but you're really overdoing the drama a bit - it's a fucking phone, man. Do you also consider the need to decide between purchasing a car with a regular gas engine versus one with a diesel engine to constitute some sort of heinous abridgment of your freedoms?

I'm fairly certain the Greatest Generation wasn't storming the beaches of Normandy thinking, "Someday, my grandson is going to be able to install whatever software he likes - including ass'n'titty apps, by gum! - on his smart phone."

Or at least, I seem to have missed that episode of Band of Brothers. Maybe it was one of the ones between when they stormed the beaches in France and when they liberated the prisoners at Dachau?

Re:Correction on misquote

[LodCrappo]

If you don't think that corporate control of our society is a big problem.. well what can I say... Enjoy the future, brought to by Megacorp, sponsored by Bigco. People like you are letting it happen, trading control for trinkets while the ultra wealthy laugh all the way to the bank.

Re:Correction on misquote

[Anonymous Coward]

If it wasn't for those "big bad corporations" Linux would be completely irrelevant. Practically everything available on Linux that isn't complete trash is made by developers that are being paid by "big bad corporations."

So what are you using exactly? Hurd with all of the applications programmed in Emacs Lisp?

Re:Correction on misquote

[Americano]

Funny, the phone I have today can do about a million more things than my first cell phone (a Nokia, ca. 1993) ever could; it's also about a million times more capable than my Treo, ca. 2004. I've yet to find something I feel I need to do with it that doesn't have an app already available to accomplish.

So explain to me again: what power and control am I sacrificing? Seems to me like I've got far more power and control over the use of my phone than I've ever had before. Until my purchase of an iPhone, my control over my phone amounted to "I can place calls and remove the battery if I want." From where I'm sitting, I have more control and utility out of my phone today than I've ever had in the past. Looks like I win.

Finally someone is thinking.

[SuperKendall]

I would have thought that a reasonable way to solve this would be for a GPLv2 application distributed in the App Store to have a link to a web page where you can download the source and the binary.

Finally someone with some sense.

What I would were I building a GPL app would provide a link to the source and one of many innumerable pirate sites that strip the DRM from a binary. Then it wouldn't even be a pedantic thing, you'd be giving access to an open version of the binary.

Heck, technically the actual "binary" can be taken out of the IPA and put up all by itself, since if you have the project you also have all the other components that get wrapped with the binary for distribution.

Re:App Store Model?

[Elbereth]

I agree, but we're apparently in the extreme minority. Sometimes I wonder if I'm missing out by not having a Facebook page, an iPhone/Android, meaningless sex with chicks from bars, and a big screen television that gets 2000 channels. Then I usually come to my senses and start to hate that shit again.

Many open source libraries used in iOS development

[SuperKendall]

Actually it's not even incompatible with the GPL as some are claiming, if you read the licenses.

But if you don't want to get into the GPL think many iOS libraries use a variant of the BSD or Apache licenses which are more liberal about use in commercial products without releasing source.

The whole point of iS is touch interaction

[Anonymous Coward]

It's OK that you don't get it, but the whole UX revolution of the iOS devices is/was the "magic" instant feedback from multi-touch. Apps like Garage Band, iMovie, and Key Note are proving how powerful the interaction style can be. Then there are the games...

No room for open source in the "app store" model.

[blanks]

Really have people in the open source community not realized this yet? App stores like Apple are not setup to distribute software or sharing code or ideas. it's about making money. Period! If apple has to choose between a sub par app that will sell for $5.00 over a similar app that is open source and free they will accept the lesser product because they can make money. It has happened in the past so don't expect it to change.

Besides with these apps stores are a dead end for open source products. People can download and use the product and it ends there. They can't download the source, make changes, distribute, etc. So these stores really limit open source software since the changes of people getting involved with them is almost non existent.

Cart before the horse

[Rennt]

So the answer is to throw out our carefully evolved OSS licences to comply with de jour app store policy? Fuck that.

Re:Cart before the horse

[jo_ham]

No, just use the GPLv2 if you like. It's compatible with the App Store.

Re:Cart before the horse

[Anonymous Coward]

being that
a) gpl requires the distributor to offer the source code to the distributed program
b) apple is the distributor (in the app store scenario)
c) apple is unwilling to set up a small ftp server to offer said source code
i'd have to say: No, gplv2 is not compatible with the App Store AS IT IS NOW.
It would be easy to fix, though - and that is apple's job.

Error Blogs

[protik2644]

Good Investigation. See more like this on http://www.blog-not-found.com/ really a preferable source of this type of info.

Go BSD License!

[Anonymous Coward]

*NM*

Re:App Store Model?

[SuricouRaven]

You forgot about the twitter account.

Re:Many open source libraries used in iOS developm

[Jane Q. Public]

Actually, I was planning to make it free.

Maybe I mis-read what the others were saying. Is that the real problem here? Commercial (for-profit) distribution with added restrictions?

laughs

[Billly Gates]

... gets back on my android phone

Re:App Store Model?

[Americano]

No, real geeks value their time enough to know that reinventing the wheel is usually an immensely stupid idea. App stores are for those who value their time more than they value the $1.99 they'll spend on an app that's available now, and addresses their needs.

Re:App Store Model?

[Sam Douglas]

Like

Re:App Store Model?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes I wonder if I'm missing out [...] start to hate that shit again.

I'd say you're only missing out on grapes that are obviously sour, mister fox!

Foolish FUD

[SuperKendall]

If you don't mind violating a contract

A contract no-one ever reads is hardly something one can really violate.

forgoing access to future updates

For a week? Really? That's such a big deal to you?

hich might include vital security patches

If they are really that vital then you go back to the standard OS for a week.

running the risk of bricking your very expensive phone if you screw up

You must be thinking of WM7 or Android because that doesn't happen on iPhones. I guess I have heard of some people bricking Android phones now that I think about it since they were trying to install updates carriers would not let them have, in order to instal critical security updates they would never get otherwise...

What a massive FUD spreader you are. You're the kind of guy who sits crouched in grocery store isles warning people not to drink Mtn Dew because the green is "not of this earth" as told to you by the many voices in your head.

Re:Foolish FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

you sir are one hell of a fanboy, i'll give you that. kind of wish you were playing for the good guys

Re:Foolish FUD

[LodCrappo]

If you don't mind violating a contract

A contract no-one ever reads is hardly something one can really violate.

I don't think the "I didn't read what I signed so it can't be used against me" defense usually works out so well in the real world. Might do better going with the Chewbacca defense.

Age of consent

[Anonymous Coward]

It is about time both apple and M$ Corp stopped behaving like spoilt bratts they have both reached the age of consent so start acting like mature entity's instead of spoilt kid's that need their nappies (dipers for the us) changing .

Just grow up learn you don't rule anything what you continually fight over is just text you cannot stop people using or passing on text else there would be no papers no tv nothing , Grow up you juvenile scum balls

The GPL is not just an open source license

[Cigaes]

I completely second this.

What people forget here is that the GPL is not just an open source license, not even just the most popular open source license. It has specifically been conceived as a “weapon” to wage “war” against proprietary software. That is the whole point of the “copyleft” idea: give Free software an advantage it does not normally have by locking out proprietary editors.

Closed embedded devices is now mostly the realm of proprietary software. If their users are denied the benefit of all the GPL software around, maybe they will migrate to a less closed platform.

The changes from GPLv2 to GPLv3 already went in that direction, but they rather focused on software that was embedded in hardware without possibility of control, not individual applications that can be installed separately on a closed and locked-down operating system. I would not be surprised if we heard soon about a future GPLv4 that focuses specifically on that.

Re:No room for open source in the "app store" mode

[jo_ham]

These guys:
http://maniacdev.com/2010/06/35-open-source-iphone-app-store-apps-updated-with-10-new-apps/

would like to disagree with you.

Re:Rumors

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, Mummy, I can use a URL shortener ALL BY MYSELF!

If you're wanting to give us the impression that you actually have a brain, try composing an original GNAA first post.

What Apple fears?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Is it really that hard to figure out what both Apple and MS fear?

Google, RIM, HP, Nokia, Sony, Intel and COUNTLESS others. Bam, there is google with 1 no 2 osses! BAM Rim, just goes to number 1 with its own OS. Here is HP! Another OS. Nokia... oh okay down for the count a bit but damn Meego was scary... Sony still examing its options. Intel... part of Wintel and publicly stated that Meego is still going.

They fear competition. Why do you think MS and Apple HATE the GPL and IBM loves it? Because companies like IBM and Intel won't be selling software, they sell services or hardware. Intel won't want you to buy a Meego Phone, it wants you to buy an Intel powered phone.

MS and Apple sell software (yes I know Apple sells hardware as well but what sells an Intel Mac, the hardware or the OS?) and competitions is coming in from all sides while at the same time they have a hard time competing on other platforms. MS WP7, not exactly taking off is it?

GPL allows not just competition but open competition, it chances the nature of the game. Intel wouldn't care if a hundred different Intel Phone makers spring up using Intel chips and maybe or maybe not Meega as the OS. As long as it sells its chips. MS cares if your next phone isn't running WP7. Same with Apple.

You might laugh at say a Red Hat compared to either of the closed source giants but sales are being lost. Worse, MS software buyers KNOW this and so can drive a harder bargain. Apple fears Android the same. Gosh yes, the iPhone is selling very well, but if it hadn't been for pesky linux and that damned GPL, the android sales would have been iPhone sales.

And app store developers fear the GPL as well. Who can compete? How many crappy video players exist for the iPhone? Would be solved in a flash by a VLC port, which would be free because you can always take the code and compile it yourself which has years ahead of any of its "rivals".

In fact that was one of the ideas behind the N900, linux nokia phone. Full Linux meaning you get all the goodies of a full linux distro ready to go. What remains to be sold? Just games and there are a ton of those also available already.

No, Apple fears the GPL because it fears its effect on its bottom line. Remember, Apple earns cash for every crappy app sold.

GPL License Exception

[Anonymous Coward]

If your app's license is "GPLv2 or later", then you still have a potential problem with the GPLv3.

Wouldn't the following exception work?

XXXX is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License
with the following clarification and exception.

Exception Intent:
  We want users of XXXX to be able to use GPL-licensed software
  despite the fact that not all mobile device Terms of Service are (or
  interpreteted to be) compatible with the GPL.

  Therefore we have issued the following exception.

              Mobile Device Exception

Legal Terms and Conditions:
  This special exception applies to the terms and conditions of version
  3.0 of the GNU General Public License ("GNU GPL").

  0. Additional Definitions

    "Mobile Device" means a computing device (such as a smartphone or
    tablet computer) that communicates with other devices or hosts
    through a mobile or wireless network.

    "Mobile Device Restrictions" refers to Terms of Service as set forth
    by a mobile/wireless carrier, application distributor, or mobile device
    manufacturer which may restrict the exercise of the rights granted
    or affirmed under the GNU GPL.

  1. Exception to Section 6 of the GNU GPL

    You may convey a covered work under sections 6 of this License
    ("Non-Source Forms") for use on a Mobile Device subject to the further
    restrictions defined as Mobile Device Restrictions.

  2. Conveying Modified Versions

    When you make and distribute a modified version of a covered work,
    you may extend this special exception to the GNU GPL to apply to
    your modified version as well, or you may delete any notice of this
    special exception to the GNU GPL from your modified version.

Microsoft allows GPLv2

[16K Ram Pack]

It's just v3 that isn't allowed. But go Android if you want choice.

Re:App Store Model?

[Elbereth]

Amusing. However, one could easily charge the child who cries out, "The Emperor is naked!" to be guilty of the same thing. Although, perhaps there'd need to be a certain exasperated grumpiness. Let's replace the child with a grouchy old man who forgot to take his medication.

Like Boxee?

[Anonymous Coward]

Closed, DRM box, "open" GPLv2+ source. Promises of being open reversed when they delivered a closed (DRM'd) platform.

What GPLv2 apps are available in the iOS Appstore?

[itslifejimbutnotaswe]

Well, not really, since there are other GPLv2 apps on the store

citation needed.

Re:What GPLv2 apps are available in the iOS Appsto

[jo_ham]

Number 4 on this list, Colloquy, is GPLv2.

http://maniacdev.com/2010/06/35-open-source-iphone-app-store-apps-updated-with-10-new-apps/

Easy!

[Crouty]

'With the vast amount of GPLv2 code available for use, the incompatibility between the App Store's (and Windows Marketplace's) terms of service on one hand and GPLv2 on the other is a problem in need of a fix.'

Easy. Apple and Microsoft could just make their rules compatible with the GPLv2. If they don't there does not seem be a problem, really. The opensource community does not give a flying fsck about what silly rules Apple and MS try to impose. And even if it did, there'd be nothing they could do about it. Opensource needs to be open (duh!). If an app-shop refuses to guarantee openness they will have to do without OSS. It's their loss, not the OSS people's.

GPL3 does.

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL3 does. And GPL2 says "and everything you need to make the binary" which includes things like a signing key.

Re:GPL3 does.

[aristotle-dude]

GPL3 does. And GPL2 says "and everything you need to make the binary" which includes things like a signing key.

What utter nonsense. Everything that you need to make a binary is the source code. That is not necessarily mean everything you need to make a signed binary in the app store. You need paid developer account for that. You can create a binary targeting the simulator without the key.

The GPL V2 certainly does not require distribution of libraries or all build scripts for every platform imaginable. There are plenty of examples out there of source code that does not include a build script for OS X even though binaries are available from third parties.