Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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?
echo -n blabla | md5sum | cut -b 1-5
First, this article is a pitch for OpenLogic's software.
The problem has a limited number of causes:
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.
Problem fixed.
-Lod
It'll never happen. Apple would have to give up some control over the platform and they'll NEVER let that happen.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
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.
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?)
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.