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.'"
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.
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.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.