Cool! I didn't even realize that asking questions like that was something that was ok to do. I'll certainly keep this sort of thing in mind if/when I need a lawyer. Thanks for the explanation.
No, I'll certainly agree with you that there's a lot about that thread that seriously lacks tact.
I don't really know what to make about people like Linus Torvalds. Obviously I've benefited greatly from his work, and he's clearly a talented engineer, but from what I've read, it seems like he's not a particularly nice guy (and he admits this readily). I suppose it's fine to respect someone for their contributions without that really saying anything about them as a person.
Does this mean we should refer to BSD or GPL code as being "copyright-encumbered"?
Depends on how you define "blocked" and "limited" and your point of view in wanting to use the software. It would be difficult to call BSD-licensed software encumbered, but the GPL does indeed restrict how you can use the software if you want to make derivative works or redistribute. Not saying it doesn't give you more rights than simple copyright, but there are still restrictions and limitations.
Many states allow sports betting, and even more (all of them?) allow you to participate in contests where you effectively only "bet" on yourself. So there's really no issue; the US federal gov't doesn't have much to say about it at all.
There's also a big legal distinction between "gambling" on games of skill and games of chance.
Perhaps you missed my "I agree," which were the first two words of my post. I do believe that the porters have fulfilled the terms of the GPL; I was merely pointing out that I can see how it might be a bit murky.
Now, however, if it were the case that you couldn't fulfill the terms of the GPL with app-store-released iPhone apps, then, correct, you wouldn't be able to release GPLed software for the iPhone at all. That's kinda how it works: either you comply with the license, or you don't release at all.
So then, yes, if the fact that Apple's approval is required for distribution meant that the GPL's terms were not fulfilled, then you could not write GPLed iPhone apps, as the original author or otherwise.
I'm not claiming that's the case though. In my useless non-lawyer opinion, I do believe you can distribute iPhone apps and fulfill the terms of the GPL.
On a side note, I'm also a bit confused by your bolded portion: whether or not the app is sold for $0 or $100 is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the GPL's terms have been satisfied.
Hmm, I don't agree with that. Having an OSS-licensed compiler is a bonus, but I wouldn't say it's necessary. Until recently, that would have made it impossible to GPL anything written in Java, for example. It would have also meant that one couldn't write Java bindings to any GPLed C library.
But sure, I can see where you're coming from. You're just more of a purist than I am, and that's ok.
As someone who releases software under the GPLv2, I'd be completely happy if someone wanted to port my software to the iPhone and sell it to recoup his development costs (in fact I'd be a little jealous I hadn't thought of it first, but that's my problem!). Maybe this wasn't an intended feature of the GPLv2, but I like it, and it's one of the reasons I haven't started releasing software under GPLv3, and why I usually don't include the "version 2 or (at your option) any later version" boilerplate in my license headers.
So you can't really get anything out of the intent of the *author* based on the license: maybe authors of GPLv2 software are ok with iPhone porting, and maybe they're not. You can only go by what the license says to determine what you're allowed to do, and in this case it's allowed. Ethically, I think it's a wash. If the original author *really* didn't want to allow people to charge for his software, he shouldn't have picked the GPL. Period.
As for the question of the iPhone being a mostly-closed device, it's hard to say. Have the porters contributed something positive to the community in doing what they did? Certainly. Have they complied with the letter of the GPLv2? Seems so (I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not gonna say "certainly"). Anything else they want to do is up to them.
Lets not get dragged into an idiotic discussion about the various meanings of 'free'.
Uh, you pretty much started one with your OSS != FOSS assertion. The meaning of "free" as used in this case is central to your argument.
The 'F' in 'FOSS' talks about freedom of speech, not freedom from price. The iPhone version of Xpilot is certainly "FOSS" if you prefer to use that term. The FSF even encourages you to try to make as much money as you want off GPLed software.
On a side note, I don't think I've heard people use "FOSS" all that much. Unless they just use "OSS," they usually use "F/LOSS" or simply "FLOSS"; the "L" is there for "libre" to avoid confusing people as to which meaning of "free" (speech) is in use.
I still don't even think this is against the spirit of the GPL. These guys did something that adds value to an existing GPLed app, and complied with the terms of the GPL.
Note that the original developer doesn't seem to take issue with the fact that they ported specifically to the iPhone, or that the iPhone has some hurdles that need to be jumped before you can get your own code running on it. If the article summary is to be believed, the original developer's only beef is that the porters are charging for the app in the app store. And in that case, such charging is explicitly allowed, and in fact the FSF encourages people to make "as much as they wish or can" (their words) off GPLed apps.
So basically, the original author is just a whiner who chose his licensing terms poorly and isn't taking responsibility for that fact.
You seem to be missing the point here. Since this is the iPhone, there is no way to freely compile the source.
Sure there is. You install Xcode and the iPhone SDK on a Mac and compile it. Or are you referring to no open-source tools to compile it when you say "freely?" Well, back when Java was closed and there weren't OSS compilers, that didn't stop anyone from releasing Java code under the GPL.
You could either use other tools and a jailbroken iPhone, but the legality of that is questionable.
It is? If it were illegal to distribute jailbreaking tools, you bet your ass Apple would have sued them all out of existence by now, given their past behavior with anything they don't like.
You could pay $99 to be able to publish your app, and put it on the app store for free, but (assuming apple approves it) you would lose $99.
Since when has *any* kind of app distribution been free as in beer? Either you're paying to press/burn CDs, or you're paying for web hosting, or... something. The fact that you "don't like" that you'd have to pay $99 to Apple is irrelevant. It's the cost of using/distributing your app on the platform of your choice.
You could put ads on it, but that decreases the quality of the app.
That's entirely up to you as the app developer and has no bearing on the GPL or the ethics of porting a GPLed app to the iPhone, or any other mostly-closed platform.
So basically, Apple screws FOSS programs in every way possible.
Wow, really? What about WebKit? What about Darwin? No, Apple's involvement in these projects hasn't been perfect, but it's hard to argue that the OSS community hasn't benefited from Apple's contributions. It sounds like you have a beef with Apple, and you're allowing it to color your judgment in this case.
I remember this chess app, back in the days of the original iPhone. I had installed it after jailbreaking my phone, and I liked it. Then, when the 2.0 update came with the app store, I didn't bother installing any apps from the app store because I was waiting for a jailbreak. When it came, I realized that all of my favorite things had been removed from the repositories and put in the app store, and many of them were not free (like that chess app).
That's your own damned fault. You knew (or should have known; ignorance is no excuse) that updating your iPhone might break apps installed via jailbreaking, and yet you did it anyway.
When I looked on the dev's site, I found that it was still GPL. But with the iPhone, the source code is effectively no longer free. It has a $99 price tag, since having source code, but not being able to compile and use it is pretty much useless.
That's entirely the developer's choice to make. Why are you *entitled* to the continued support and availability of an app you got for free?
I know that it does not matter whether or not it's free as in beer. The problem is that you cannot modify it or redistribute binaries. You also are require to provide all the necessary things to compile it. And I don't think he's providing an SDK license.
The SDK license isn't required to compile it, only to run it. (I have a copy of the iPhone SDK, which I downloaded from Apple; it compiles iPhone apps just fine, and I didn't pay a cent for the privilege.) A Windows license is required to run a piece of software on Windows. Do you also believe that people who port GPLed software to Windows should be required to purchase a Windows license to anyone who asks?
As another poster said, I'm pretty sure the duplication of functionality rationale for rejecting apps only applied to duplication of Apple-provided functionality. Really, one browse through the app store shows ridiculous amounts of duplication.
Yes, because other apps compile *so* well without a computer. The fact that you need a Mac (which can be had for $200 on ebay, or you can build a "Hackintosh" with regular x86 hardware) and can't use, say, a Sparcstation, is irrelevant. Even if you couldn't possibly use generic x86 hardware, I still don't see that as a problem.
Perhaps your issue is that the app would have to be built with non-free software? How is that different from Java in the early days, before there were OSS Java compilers? No one had any trouble distributing Java apps under the GPL back then.
And despite the so-called "Java Trap," it's always been perfectly possible to distribute Java apps under the terms of the GPL without any special exceptions (even though RMS got his panties in a bunch about it). So the Java Trap is pretty irrelevant here.
You can get a decent mid-range Mac Mini on ebay for $200 which is perfectly capable as a Mac dev machine, or you can build a "Hackintosh" out of standard x86 hardware. As others have noted, you can get around the $99 dev fee by jailbreaking your phone.
Regardless, the GPL is about freedom of speech, not freedom of price. You're not going to complain that you need a computer to build and run an Android app, or a Symbian app, are you? It's a shame that the iPhone SDK only works on Macs, but it's hardly an unreasonable barrier to entry.
AFAICT, this guy has complied with the letter of the law with regard to the GPL. As for the ethical considerations, I believe attempting to recoup costs is perfectly reasonable, GPL app or not. That the original developer doesn't agree is a shame, but it's irrelevant. If he cared that much he should've released his app under a more restrictive license.
I agree with you, but out of the bit you quoted, there's an interesting bit: "... all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code..." (emphasis mine).
One might be able to make the argument that providing source code and build files isn't enough, because you can't distribute the "means" to get it on an actual iPhone, since that requires an extra fee, and Apple's approval.
I don't really agree with that interpretation, but this is contract/licensing law... I'd bet a lawyer could twist that in his favor.
As for the *actual* question that the article asks, as to whether this is all *ethical*, I'd say yes, it is. Good for him for taking the effort to port something valuable to the iPhone, and good for him for complying with the GPL and releasing all the modifications. The money he's charging for the app seems certainly justified: doing all this stuff does require time and money, and if people are willing to pay for the app which helps him recoup these costs, great. The fact that the original developer doesn't like this is a shame, but is pretty damned irrelevant. It's his fault for not picking a license that disallows selling modified versions of his app.
Were I to list all of the open standards Apple supports (a large number of them, Apple invented), would push this post over into "Read the rest of this comment..." realm.
*Rolls eyes*. Obviously. I meant in the context of media syncing.
What it is, though, is pathetic. It further shows how lame Palm is. Instead of boldly putting forth their own system, they have to resort to mimicking their competitor? Lame, lame, lame.
I just don't see it that way. Maybe this just just my OSS developer side speaking, but I don't see iTunes as "Apple's." It's just simply a music library app that can sync with iPods. Another company wanting to support syncing their product with iTunes, which has a pretty large install base just sounds like good business to me. If they were incapable of writing sync software themselves, then, sure, that's pretty lame. But I don't think they are incapable; I think they've just chosen to do something else.
And I'm pretty sure loading up a Pre with music etc. doesn't *require* iTunes, so it's not like they're relying on iTunes for this to work.
Well, you did say most people don't really care about 3D. People running Compiz clearly do, even if they don't realize it. Intel GPUs really aren't that bad. If I misunderstood your intent, I apologize.
xfwm4 has had compositing since September 2004. Not sure about metacity, but it's probably been at least half that long.
Compiz Fusion is an OpenGL compositing manager. If you don't have 3D acceleration, Compiz will run like crap. XRender-based compositing managers such as xfwm4, metacity, and xcompmgr will run fine with only 2D acceleration, though.
How does all that solve the problem of a malicious application injecting something nasty into the drop site? It could perfectly well say "I am an image object," and when the app says "give me your image data as a JPEG," it gives it specially-crafted data that exploits a vulnerability in an image decoder. Whether or not the interfaces are OO or not have nothing to do with this.
Not saying your model doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It does. But it doesn't remove the need to do input validation. (Not that I really buy the parent's claim that lack of a desire to do good input validation is the reason we don't have decent, universal DnD support, but that's another issue.)
Is it really too much to ask for someone like Linus to respond with something like "I agree" rather than insulting the guy for making what appeared to the almighty godly genius as "obvious"?
Actually, the bit you reference isn't Linus being a dick to the person he's quoting. He's merely stating that the assumption *in the emacs code* is obvious, in that he believes that the assumption they make (that when a child writes data, then quits, the master should get the data buffered by the time the master hears about the child quitting) is reasonable (or, as he says, "obvious"). That wasn't a flippant dismissal of the person he was replying to.
Slashdot Mirror
Cool! I didn't even realize that asking questions like that was something that was ok to do. I'll certainly keep this sort of thing in mind if/when I need a lawyer. Thanks for the explanation.
No, I'll certainly agree with you that there's a lot about that thread that seriously lacks tact.
I don't really know what to make about people like Linus Torvalds. Obviously I've benefited greatly from his work, and he's clearly a talented engineer, but from what I've read, it seems like he's not a particularly nice guy (and he admits this readily). I suppose it's fine to respect someone for their contributions without that really saying anything about them as a person.
However, for my own sake, I refuse to deal with lawyers who use outsourced IT services.
How do you find out? Do you simply ask the first time you consider doing business with them?
Does this mean we should refer to BSD or GPL code as being "copyright-encumbered"?
Depends on how you define "blocked" and "limited" and your point of view in wanting to use the software. It would be difficult to call BSD-licensed software encumbered, but the GPL does indeed restrict how you can use the software if you want to make derivative works or redistribute. Not saying it doesn't give you more rights than simple copyright, but there are still restrictions and limitations.
Many states allow sports betting, and even more (all of them?) allow you to participate in contests where you effectively only "bet" on yourself. So there's really no issue; the US federal gov't doesn't have much to say about it at all.
There's also a big legal distinction between "gambling" on games of skill and games of chance.
Maybe, but the article summary specifically says the guy is looking for a solution that doesn't require a network connection.
Perhaps you missed my "I agree," which were the first two words of my post. I do believe that the porters have fulfilled the terms of the GPL; I was merely pointing out that I can see how it might be a bit murky.
Now, however, if it were the case that you couldn't fulfill the terms of the GPL with app-store-released iPhone apps, then, correct, you wouldn't be able to release GPLed software for the iPhone at all. That's kinda how it works: either you comply with the license, or you don't release at all.
So then, yes, if the fact that Apple's approval is required for distribution meant that the GPL's terms were not fulfilled, then you could not write GPLed iPhone apps, as the original author or otherwise.
I'm not claiming that's the case though. In my useless non-lawyer opinion, I do believe you can distribute iPhone apps and fulfill the terms of the GPL.
On a side note, I'm also a bit confused by your bolded portion: whether or not the app is sold for $0 or $100 is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the GPL's terms have been satisfied.
Hmm, I don't agree with that. Having an OSS-licensed compiler is a bonus, but I wouldn't say it's necessary. Until recently, that would have made it impossible to GPL anything written in Java, for example. It would have also meant that one couldn't write Java bindings to any GPLed C library.
But sure, I can see where you're coming from. You're just more of a purist than I am, and that's ok.
As someone who releases software under the GPLv2, I'd be completely happy if someone wanted to port my software to the iPhone and sell it to recoup his development costs (in fact I'd be a little jealous I hadn't thought of it first, but that's my problem!). Maybe this wasn't an intended feature of the GPLv2, but I like it, and it's one of the reasons I haven't started releasing software under GPLv3, and why I usually don't include the "version 2 or (at your option) any later version" boilerplate in my license headers.
So you can't really get anything out of the intent of the *author* based on the license: maybe authors of GPLv2 software are ok with iPhone porting, and maybe they're not. You can only go by what the license says to determine what you're allowed to do, and in this case it's allowed. Ethically, I think it's a wash. If the original author *really* didn't want to allow people to charge for his software, he shouldn't have picked the GPL. Period.
As for the question of the iPhone being a mostly-closed device, it's hard to say. Have the porters contributed something positive to the community in doing what they did? Certainly. Have they complied with the letter of the GPLv2? Seems so (I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not gonna say "certainly"). Anything else they want to do is up to them.
The GPL applies to the source. Not the binary.
Hmm, I'm not so sure about that. The GPL applies (in part) to "derivative works" of the source code. Is a compiled binary not a derivative work?
Lets not get dragged into an idiotic discussion about the various meanings of 'free'.
Uh, you pretty much started one with your OSS != FOSS assertion. The meaning of "free" as used in this case is central to your argument.
The 'F' in 'FOSS' talks about freedom of speech, not freedom from price. The iPhone version of Xpilot is certainly "FOSS" if you prefer to use that term. The FSF even encourages you to try to make as much money as you want off GPLed software.
On a side note, I don't think I've heard people use "FOSS" all that much. Unless they just use "OSS," they usually use "F/LOSS" or simply "FLOSS"; the "L" is there for "libre" to avoid confusing people as to which meaning of "free" (speech) is in use.
I still don't even think this is against the spirit of the GPL. These guys did something that adds value to an existing GPLed app, and complied with the terms of the GPL.
Note that the original developer doesn't seem to take issue with the fact that they ported specifically to the iPhone, or that the iPhone has some hurdles that need to be jumped before you can get your own code running on it. If the article summary is to be believed, the original developer's only beef is that the porters are charging for the app in the app store. And in that case, such charging is explicitly allowed, and in fact the FSF encourages people to make "as much as they wish or can" (their words) off GPLed apps.
So basically, the original author is just a whiner who chose his licensing terms poorly and isn't taking responsibility for that fact.
There is nothing wrong with charging for GPLed software as long as you provide the source code for free to anyone who asks.
Not even! The GPL explicitly allows charging a reasonable fee for the cost of distributing the source.
You seem to be missing the point here. Since this is the iPhone, there is no way to freely compile the source.
Sure there is. You install Xcode and the iPhone SDK on a Mac and compile it. Or are you referring to no open-source tools to compile it when you say "freely?" Well, back when Java was closed and there weren't OSS compilers, that didn't stop anyone from releasing Java code under the GPL.
You could either use other tools and a jailbroken iPhone, but the legality of that is questionable.
It is? If it were illegal to distribute jailbreaking tools, you bet your ass Apple would have sued them all out of existence by now, given their past behavior with anything they don't like.
You could pay $99 to be able to publish your app, and put it on the app store for free, but (assuming apple approves it) you would lose $99.
Since when has *any* kind of app distribution been free as in beer? Either you're paying to press/burn CDs, or you're paying for web hosting, or... something. The fact that you "don't like" that you'd have to pay $99 to Apple is irrelevant. It's the cost of using/distributing your app on the platform of your choice.
You could put ads on it, but that decreases the quality of the app.
That's entirely up to you as the app developer and has no bearing on the GPL or the ethics of porting a GPLed app to the iPhone, or any other mostly-closed platform.
So basically, Apple screws FOSS programs in every way possible.
Wow, really? What about WebKit? What about Darwin? No, Apple's involvement in these projects hasn't been perfect, but it's hard to argue that the OSS community hasn't benefited from Apple's contributions. It sounds like you have a beef with Apple, and you're allowing it to color your judgment in this case.
I remember this chess app, back in the days of the original iPhone. I had installed it after jailbreaking my phone, and I liked it. Then, when the 2.0 update came with the app store, I didn't bother installing any apps from the app store because I was waiting for a jailbreak. When it came, I realized that all of my favorite things had been removed from the repositories and put in the app store, and many of them were not free (like that chess app).
That's your own damned fault. You knew (or should have known; ignorance is no excuse) that updating your iPhone might break apps installed via jailbreaking, and yet you did it anyway.
When I looked on the dev's site, I found that it was still GPL. But with the iPhone, the source code is effectively no longer free. It has a $99 price tag, since having source code, but not being able to compile and use it is pretty much useless.
That's entirely the developer's choice to make. Why are you *entitled* to the continued support and availability of an app you got for free?
I know that it does not matter whether or not it's free as in beer. The problem is that you cannot modify it or redistribute binaries. You also are require to provide all the necessary things to compile it. And I don't think he's providing an SDK license.
The SDK license isn't required to compile it, only to run it. (I have a copy of the iPhone SDK, which I downloaded from Apple; it compiles iPhone apps just fine, and I didn't pay a cent for the privilege.) A Windows license is required to run a piece of software on Windows. Do you also believe that people who port GPLed software to Windows should be required to purchase a Windows license to anyone who asks?
It's not a "loophole." Selling GPLed software an explicitly-documented allowed use.
As another poster said, I'm pretty sure the duplication of functionality rationale for rejecting apps only applied to duplication of Apple-provided functionality. Really, one browse through the app store shows ridiculous amounts of duplication.
Yes, because other apps compile *so* well without a computer. The fact that you need a Mac (which can be had for $200 on ebay, or you can build a "Hackintosh" with regular x86 hardware) and can't use, say, a Sparcstation, is irrelevant. Even if you couldn't possibly use generic x86 hardware, I still don't see that as a problem.
Perhaps your issue is that the app would have to be built with non-free software? How is that different from Java in the early days, before there were OSS Java compilers? No one had any trouble distributing Java apps under the GPL back then.
And despite the so-called "Java Trap," it's always been perfectly possible to distribute Java apps under the terms of the GPL without any special exceptions (even though RMS got his panties in a bunch about it). So the Java Trap is pretty irrelevant here.
You can get a decent mid-range Mac Mini on ebay for $200 which is perfectly capable as a Mac dev machine, or you can build a "Hackintosh" out of standard x86 hardware. As others have noted, you can get around the $99 dev fee by jailbreaking your phone.
Regardless, the GPL is about freedom of speech, not freedom of price. You're not going to complain that you need a computer to build and run an Android app, or a Symbian app, are you? It's a shame that the iPhone SDK only works on Macs, but it's hardly an unreasonable barrier to entry.
AFAICT, this guy has complied with the letter of the law with regard to the GPL. As for the ethical considerations, I believe attempting to recoup costs is perfectly reasonable, GPL app or not. That the original developer doesn't agree is a shame, but it's irrelevant. If he cared that much he should've released his app under a more restrictive license.
I agree with you, but out of the bit you quoted, there's an interesting bit: "... all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code..." (emphasis mine).
One might be able to make the argument that providing source code and build files isn't enough, because you can't distribute the "means" to get it on an actual iPhone, since that requires an extra fee, and Apple's approval.
I don't really agree with that interpretation, but this is contract/licensing law... I'd bet a lawyer could twist that in his favor.
As for the *actual* question that the article asks, as to whether this is all *ethical*, I'd say yes, it is. Good for him for taking the effort to port something valuable to the iPhone, and good for him for complying with the GPL and releasing all the modifications. The money he's charging for the app seems certainly justified: doing all this stuff does require time and money, and if people are willing to pay for the app which helps him recoup these costs, great. The fact that the original developer doesn't like this is a shame, but is pretty damned irrelevant. It's his fault for not picking a license that disallows selling modified versions of his app.
Were I to list all of the open standards Apple supports (a large number of them, Apple invented), would push this post over into "Read the rest of this comment..." realm.
*Rolls eyes*. Obviously. I meant in the context of media syncing.
What it is, though, is pathetic. It further shows how lame Palm is. Instead of boldly putting forth their own system, they have to resort to mimicking their competitor? Lame, lame, lame.
I just don't see it that way. Maybe this just just my OSS developer side speaking, but I don't see iTunes as "Apple's." It's just simply a music library app that can sync with iPods. Another company wanting to support syncing their product with iTunes, which has a pretty large install base just sounds like good business to me. If they were incapable of writing sync software themselves, then, sure, that's pretty lame. But I don't think they are incapable; I think they've just chosen to do something else.
And I'm pretty sure loading up a Pre with music etc. doesn't *require* iTunes, so it's not like they're relying on iTunes for this to work.
Well, you did say most people don't really care about 3D. People running Compiz clearly do, even if they don't realize it. Intel GPUs really aren't that bad. If I misunderstood your intent, I apologize.
xfwm4 has had compositing since September 2004. Not sure about metacity, but it's probably been at least half that long.
Compiz Fusion is an OpenGL compositing manager. If you don't have 3D acceleration, Compiz will run like crap. XRender-based compositing managers such as xfwm4, metacity, and xcompmgr will run fine with only 2D acceleration, though.
How does all that solve the problem of a malicious application injecting something nasty into the drop site? It could perfectly well say "I am an image object," and when the app says "give me your image data as a JPEG," it gives it specially-crafted data that exploits a vulnerability in an image decoder. Whether or not the interfaces are OO or not have nothing to do with this.
Not saying your model doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It does. But it doesn't remove the need to do input validation. (Not that I really buy the parent's claim that lack of a desire to do good input validation is the reason we don't have decent, universal DnD support, but that's another issue.)
Is it really too much to ask for someone like Linus to respond with something like "I agree" rather than insulting the guy for making what appeared to the almighty godly genius as "obvious"?
Actually, the bit you reference isn't Linus being a dick to the person he's quoting. He's merely stating that the assumption *in the emacs code* is obvious, in that he believes that the assumption they make (that when a child writes data, then quits, the master should get the data buffered by the time the master hears about the child quitting) is reasonable (or, as he says, "obvious"). That wasn't a flippant dismissal of the person he was replying to.