IANAL, but my reading of GPLv2 is that Apple violates the GPL by publishing apps compiled under GPL licenses (v2 or v3).
Apple requires that all applications on its platform are signed with a private key as part of their DRM system. The actual "object code" the end user receives is encrypted with this key (and a small bit of its own special DRM sauce, from what I hear). Therefore, under the GPL, Apple would be required to provide the key used to make this encrypted copy of the application, and the source to any other inlined (not linked) DRM code (that is, everything that constitutes part of the "source code" of Apple's 'derivative work' based on the GPL'ed app submitted by the developer). From the GPLv2:
For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
And to the commenters screaming "it's ok because it's GPLv2!", this would NOT require the "tivoization clause" covered by version 3 of the GPL (the requirement to provide "Installation Information" for a "User Product", because the applications in question are not part of the original User Product being sold in the first place, and so they wouldn't be covered.
The "operating system exception" (the one that provided the GPlv2 loophole for Tivo) doesn't cover the private key in an iPhone app, because the private key for a specific published app does not constitute any of "the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs".
Seems to me that a quick Cease and Desist letter to Apple from one of the original software's authors for failing to provide source to the encrypted object code would be all that's needed to settle the debate. Of course, Apple would probably err on the side of caution and pull the app anyway, rather than mess around with potentially defending themselves in court for a GPL violation on behalf of a lone developer.
Thanks for the comments, and yeah I should have mentioned that we're focusing on games specifically for now. The site is still very beta so we're still trying to figure out the best parts to focus on building and improving.
I think my biggest beef with all of the 'app stores' out there is that they already existed in one form or another.
Well, sure, but in a much lesser form. There have always been sites that can put up a bunch of Java games for sale, but I wouldn't consider those sites to be the same class of store that Apple first introduced, and that all of the upcoming 'app store competition' will offer. The huge difference is the level of integration with the device and with the user. You maintain an account with the App Store where you can manage all of your purchases, downloads and payment information, rather than just perform a one-time download of a file off a website. You also have a customized catalog application on the phone itself that makes it much more convenient to find and download new applications. Apple also included a very usable developer SDK which really paved the way for small, independent developers to start making applications themselves.
Finally, there's the huge task of creating an easy to use system through which developers can submit and publish their own paid applications, and receive a split of the proceeds. Setting this up is actually the biggest challenge in my opinion, as well as one of the biggest draws that will bring publishers to these new stores (and I assume that this is why Google took so long to open up the Android store to paid applications).
If these features are not present in the upcoming competition then it wouldn't be fair to even put them in the same category, since this is precisely what distinguishes these new efforts from the existing third-party application portal sites that have already been around for years. If all we're going to see from these is just more of the same sort of pre-App Store mobile application portals, then that would definitely be a step backward.
If you think it's limited to J2ME 'phones then have a look at AndAppStore.com who've been offering Android apps for months and aren't Google affiliated in any way.
Java != J2ME. The Android platform is most certainly also Java-based, even though it's a little different from Sun's CLDC/MIDP/J2ME platform, and third-party app stores can definitely support those devices as well, as we also have plans to down the road.
The company I work for launched a public beta of our third-party app store this week, called Xpressed (the site is brand new, so feedback is welcome). Unlike the app stores mentioned in this article, it's a true "third-party" app store meaning that we're unaffiliated with any device manufacturer or carrier, and so we plan to support any and all phones out on the market that allow applications to be downloaded and installed from non-proprietary websites. Right now this pretty much means most of the Java-based phones on the market (several hundred current phones, plus the hundreds more old and obsolete devices).
It will be interesting to see which model wins out after all of the industry players have their say in this growing application space - whether manufacturer-supported app stores (presumably) integrated with the devices themselves will continue to dominate, or whether third-party app stores like Xpressed will be able to find a footing, especially among developers targeting their apps across multiple platforms.
Anonymous Coward. "Re:Why not OpenOffice?" Weblog comment. 10 November 2008. "StarOffice Dropped From Google Pack." Timothy Lord. Slashdot. 10 November 2008 (http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1023681&cid=25702165).
He feels that games should be archived in the same way that music, books and film are preserved, as we often use them as markers in our culture and history.
This only applies to the destructive elements of games (packaging, artwork, instruction manuals, etc), and the actual computer or console hardware the games are run on.
However, the whole 'stick videogames in museums' mentality this projects reeks of reflects a much greater ignorance of the preservation of software in general. What we really need in order to 'preserve' video game culture is not some expensive museum space full of trite screenshots of software still under copyright that nobody is legally allowed to play themselves, but we need a relaxation of copyright and a strengthening of fair use so that old cultural artifacts that are no longer profitable and would otherwise be forgotten are defaulted to the public domain. Then the 'preservation' and archiving would happen on their own for free by people who still love the old games and enjoy taking part in the preservation of a culture they were a part of. Just look at projects like MAME and the massive ROM archives collections that are passed around the Internet underground and continue to exist despite all of the legal obstacles.
If the God of Hype himself is hesitant to give his own latest and greatest game AT LEAST a 10/10, then this must truly be his worst game production of all time...After all, 90% is most definitely the WORST self-imposed rating he has ever given one of his own games. Remember, each and every one of his previous releases has been a genre-defining, breakthrough masterpiece that changed the landscape of computer games for the next 100 years to come.
The only other possible alternative is that Sir Molyneux has gained just a shred of humility.
Your Wikipedia bio mentions that you left your position as Lead System Architect for the OpenMoko project in 2007 due to "internal friction and demotivation". What are your current thoughts on the OpenMoko platform, has it made significant improvements since your decision? What are the biggest hurdles it still needs to overcome before you would consider it a successful project? Are there any other upcoming mobile platforms that have you excited for the future of open source development on mobile phones, or is the industry/market perhaps still too premature for open-architecture Linux on the cell phone?
You can't copyright a game. Hasbro is suing them over the trademark. Scrabulous should have used a name that doesn't sound like Scrabble, then there would be nothing Hasbro could do. Perhaps Scrabulous could change their name to Crapple.
Well, according to the written law you can't trademark a game in general either. All you can protect with trademark law is a mark that enables the general public to identify a single source or manufacturer of products versus others of a similar type. If Scrabulous can successfully prove in court (once and for all) that the general public identifies the name "Scrabble" with the game in general (that is, its functional, non-copyrightable, game mechanics, the kind of stuff that could be/has been patented) and not with Hasbro's particular brand of Scrabble, then they can win their case. I'm not sure if there has ever been a case where this has been clearly tested in court one way or the other, since the big IP owners always seem to end up 'settling' with the little guys before it's ever fully decided.
See for example Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group for some intelligent legal discussion regarding the "monopoly" trademark and how the genericness test for game trademarks could be applied in general. Read the fictitious example on "EN PASSANT". (The Anti-Monopoly case went all the way to the Supreme Court, but then Parker Brothers bought out their opponents before they lost their precious trademark.)
See also this earlier Scrabble trademark case, where the dubious legal grounds of the trademark is suggested, but never fully tested. From the ruling: "The extent to which [SCRABBLE] has come into general use to describe a game or games rather than their origin or source of supply is fairly open to proof." And finally: "We express no opinion on the merits of S&R's claims."
Basically, if these guys find some lawyers who actually have a clue about the relevant law they might have a chance, but chances are they'll just buckle like most other small companies in the face of corporate behemoths. I mean come on, the combined legal weight of Hasbro AND EA coming down on them? These guys wouldn't stand a chance in hell even if their game was named "zzyzx".
Yes, one should expect Microsoft to maintain its customers from one OS to the next (especially corporations and OEMs) meaning that Vista will grow as XP declines when users upgrade, so you need to combine the market numbers to get a better idea of the trends.
From the same data report you linked:
August 2007: Microsoft - XP 80.84%, Vista 6.29%, Win2k 3.68% - Total 90.81% Apple - MacIntel 2.83%, MacOS 3.35% - Total 6.18% Linux Total 0.47%
June 2008: Microsoft - XP 71.20%, Vista 16.14%, Win2k 2.11% - Total 89.45% = Down 1.36 points = -1.5% Apple - MacIntel 5.25%, MacOS 2.69% - Total 7.94% = Up 1.76 points = +28.5% Linux - Total 0.80% = Up 0.33 points = +70.2%
Considering Microsoft lost more than the entire market share of Linux in the past year, I think it's safe to say that Microsoft's attempts to transition its customer base from XP to Vista is "stumbling terribly".
but back in the pre-GUI days, white on blue was pretty soothing
...ahh, I fondly remember those days, when seeing a soothing white-on-blue screen appear didn't yet cause me to instinctively start cursing and reach for the power switch...
It requires an external ARM processor, so it could be running on BREW. Then again, that would explain the strange requirement to send samples to National Coffee Testing Labs for a taste-test before you're allowed to drink a drop.
They used to stand for something better than the thugs that now own them and shake their leashes. Yet another fabrication that the media would like you to believe!
No. Your whole argument is a series of assertions that Java is big today (its not) and that therefore it can never lose its market domination (it can). It's so wrong that it's irritating. Are you seriously trying to claim that Java is not "big today" in the mobile phone market, and could possibly lose its market domination to the iPhone SDK? There's something like 2 billion cell phones out there that support Java, the vast majority, compared to the iPhone's several million. Java is definitely the language of choice for mobile developers, which is what we're talking about here. You're obviously completely ignorant of the entire mobile software industry if you're irritated by this 'series of assertions'.
Why would that be an issue? If a developer feels the market is worth going after, then buying a Mac is no big deal. In fact, I'd be surprised if there were many developers who didn't have at least one Mac in their business, even if they don't use it to develop on or for. It's not as simple as "buying a mac" and clicking a 'compile game for iPhone' button, it's forcing your project cycle to incorporate the entire MacOS environment into your game development, which is a very big deal. Now, assuming that the developer makes the decision that it's even worth making an iPhone port of their game, this means that not only do they need to port any of their existing Java code over to objective-C, but they have to either (1) purchase Macs for all of the programmers put on the porting project, allotting them enough extra time to learn the quite unfamiliar OS, IDE, and programming language combo; or (2) hire an extra, separate team of Mac-capable developers just for the iPhone ports.
The other option is to just do iPhone-exclusive game development from the start, which right away corners you into an extremely niche and unproven market. You'd be better off developing for the portable consoles (DS, PSP, etc) which have markets large enough to actually justify this sort of device-specific exclusive game development.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but my reading of GPLv2 is that Apple violates the GPL by publishing apps compiled under GPL licenses (v2 or v3).
Apple requires that all applications on its platform are signed with a private key as part of their DRM system. The actual "object code" the end user receives is encrypted with this key (and a small bit of its own special DRM sauce, from what I hear). Therefore, under the GPL, Apple would be required to provide the key used to make this encrypted copy of the application, and the source to any other inlined (not linked) DRM code (that is, everything that constitutes part of the "source code" of Apple's 'derivative work' based on the GPL'ed app submitted by the developer). From the GPLv2:
For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
And to the commenters screaming "it's ok because it's GPLv2!", this would NOT require the "tivoization clause" covered by version 3 of the GPL (the requirement to provide "Installation Information" for a "User Product", because the applications in question are not part of the original User Product being sold in the first place, and so they wouldn't be covered.
The "operating system exception" (the one that provided the GPlv2 loophole for Tivo) doesn't cover the private key in an iPhone app, because the private key for a specific published app does not constitute any of "the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs".
Seems to me that a quick Cease and Desist letter to Apple from one of the original software's authors for failing to provide source to the encrypted object code would be all that's needed to settle the debate. Of course, Apple would probably err on the side of caution and pull the app anyway, rather than mess around with potentially defending themselves in court for a GPL violation on behalf of a lone developer.
Yeah, they must be crazy or something...
I just finished my upgrade. Everything seems to be running great, stability is rock solid, no probl
Thanks for the comments, and yeah I should have mentioned that we're focusing on games specifically for now. The site is still very beta so we're still trying to figure out the best parts to focus on building and improving.
I think my biggest beef with all of the 'app stores' out there is that they already existed in one form or another.
Well, sure, but in a much lesser form. There have always been sites that can put up a bunch of Java games for sale, but I wouldn't consider those sites to be the same class of store that Apple first introduced, and that all of the upcoming 'app store competition' will offer. The huge difference is the level of integration with the device and with the user. You maintain an account with the App Store where you can manage all of your purchases, downloads and payment information, rather than just perform a one-time download of a file off a website. You also have a customized catalog application on the phone itself that makes it much more convenient to find and download new applications. Apple also included a very usable developer SDK which really paved the way for small, independent developers to start making applications themselves.
Finally, there's the huge task of creating an easy to use system through which developers can submit and publish their own paid applications, and receive a split of the proceeds. Setting this up is actually the biggest challenge in my opinion, as well as one of the biggest draws that will bring publishers to these new stores (and I assume that this is why Google took so long to open up the Android store to paid applications).
If these features are not present in the upcoming competition then it wouldn't be fair to even put them in the same category, since this is precisely what distinguishes these new efforts from the existing third-party application portal sites that have already been around for years. If all we're going to see from these is just more of the same sort of pre-App Store mobile application portals, then that would definitely be a step backward.
If you think it's limited to J2ME 'phones then have a look at AndAppStore.com who've been offering Android apps for months and aren't Google affiliated in any way.
Java != J2ME. The Android platform is most certainly also Java-based, even though it's a little different from Sun's CLDC/MIDP/J2ME platform, and third-party app stores can definitely support those devices as well, as we also have plans to down the road.
The company I work for launched a public beta of our third-party app store this week, called Xpressed (the site is brand new, so feedback is welcome). Unlike the app stores mentioned in this article, it's a true "third-party" app store meaning that we're unaffiliated with any device manufacturer or carrier, and so we plan to support any and all phones out on the market that allow applications to be downloaded and installed from non-proprietary websites. Right now this pretty much means most of the Java-based phones on the market (several hundred current phones, plus the hundreds more old and obsolete devices).
It will be interesting to see which model wins out after all of the industry players have their say in this growing application space - whether manufacturer-supported app stores (presumably) integrated with the devices themselves will continue to dominate, or whether third-party app stores like Xpressed will be able to find a footing, especially among developers targeting their apps across multiple platforms.
Non-Slashdot translation: "LOL."
Communists call it "cooperation".
[citation needed]
Anonymous Coward. "Re:Why not OpenOffice?" Weblog comment. 10 November 2008. "StarOffice Dropped From Google Pack." Timothy Lord. Slashdot. 10 November 2008 (http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1023681&cid=25702165).
Hope that helps~
We here at Slashdot hope you get the RIAA to cover the bill for your hard work!
If not, just post a few more stories here and the ad revenue should cover it.
He feels that games should be archived in the same way that music, books and film are preserved, as we often use them as markers in our culture and history.
This only applies to the destructive elements of games (packaging, artwork, instruction manuals, etc), and the actual computer or console hardware the games are run on. However, the whole 'stick videogames in museums' mentality this projects reeks of reflects a much greater ignorance of the preservation of software in general. What we really need in order to 'preserve' video game culture is not some expensive museum space full of trite screenshots of software still under copyright that nobody is legally allowed to play themselves, but we need a relaxation of copyright and a strengthening of fair use so that old cultural artifacts that are no longer profitable and would otherwise be forgotten are defaulted to the public domain. Then the 'preservation' and archiving would happen on their own for free by people who still love the old games and enjoy taking part in the preservation of a culture they were a part of. Just look at projects like MAME and the massive ROM archives collections that are passed around the Internet underground and continue to exist despite all of the legal obstacles.
You mean like this one?
(Score:-1, Unpatriotic)
If the God of Hype himself is hesitant to give his own latest and greatest game AT LEAST a 10/10, then this must truly be his worst game production of all time...After all, 90% is most definitely the WORST self-imposed rating he has ever given one of his own games. Remember, each and every one of his previous releases has been a genre-defining, breakthrough masterpiece that changed the landscape of computer games for the next 100 years to come.
The only other possible alternative is that Sir Molyneux has gained just a shred of humility.
...impossible. The game must be god-awful.
Your Wikipedia bio mentions that you left your position as Lead System Architect for the OpenMoko project in 2007 due to "internal friction and demotivation". What are your current thoughts on the OpenMoko platform, has it made significant improvements since your decision? What are the biggest hurdles it still needs to overcome before you would consider it a successful project? Are there any other upcoming mobile platforms that have you excited for the future of open source development on mobile phones, or is the industry/market perhaps still too premature for open-architecture Linux on the cell phone?
You mean Web 2.0 (R), registered trademark of United Business Media.
"Another One Bites the Dust: A Survey of Radial Velocities in the Zodiacal Dust Cloud".
You can't copyright a game. Hasbro is suing them over the trademark. Scrabulous should have used a name that doesn't sound like Scrabble, then there would be nothing Hasbro could do. Perhaps Scrabulous could change their name to Crapple.
Well, according to the written law you can't trademark a game in general either. All you can protect with trademark law is a mark that enables the general public to identify a single source or manufacturer of products versus others of a similar type. If Scrabulous can successfully prove in court (once and for all) that the general public identifies the name "Scrabble" with the game in general (that is, its functional, non-copyrightable, game mechanics, the kind of stuff that could be/has been patented) and not with Hasbro's particular brand of Scrabble, then they can win their case. I'm not sure if there has ever been a case where this has been clearly tested in court one way or the other, since the big IP owners always seem to end up 'settling' with the little guys before it's ever fully decided.
See for example Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group for some intelligent legal discussion regarding the "monopoly" trademark and how the genericness test for game trademarks could be applied in general. Read the fictitious example on "EN PASSANT". (The Anti-Monopoly case went all the way to the Supreme Court, but then Parker Brothers bought out their opponents before they lost their precious trademark.)
See also this earlier Scrabble trademark case, where the dubious legal grounds of the trademark is suggested, but never fully tested. From the ruling: "The extent to which [SCRABBLE] has come into general use to describe a game or games rather than their origin or source of supply is fairly open to proof." And finally: "We express no opinion on the merits of S&R's claims."
Basically, if these guys find some lawyers who actually have a clue about the relevant law they might have a chance, but chances are they'll just buckle like most other small companies in the face of corporate behemoths. I mean come on, the combined legal weight of Hasbro AND EA coming down on them? These guys wouldn't stand a chance in hell even if their game was named "zzyzx".
Just my .02USD
Actually, your 'two cents' post would cost you .60USD at standard SMS rates...
Yes, one should expect Microsoft to maintain its customers from one OS to the next (especially corporations and OEMs) meaning that Vista will grow as XP declines when users upgrade, so you need to combine the market numbers to get a better idea of the trends.
From the same data report you linked:
August 2007:
Microsoft - XP 80.84%, Vista 6.29%, Win2k 3.68% - Total 90.81%
Apple - MacIntel 2.83%, MacOS 3.35% - Total 6.18%
Linux Total 0.47%
June 2008:
Microsoft - XP 71.20%, Vista 16.14%, Win2k 2.11% - Total 89.45% = Down 1.36 points = -1.5%
Apple - MacIntel 5.25%, MacOS 2.69% - Total 7.94% = Up 1.76 points = +28.5%
Linux - Total 0.80% = Up 0.33 points = +70.2%
Considering Microsoft lost more than the entire market share of Linux in the past year, I think it's safe to say that Microsoft's attempts to transition its customer base from XP to Vista is "stumbling terribly".
but back in the pre-GUI days, white on blue was pretty soothing
...ahh, I fondly remember those days, when seeing a soothing white-on-blue screen appear didn't yet cause me to instinctively start cursing and reach for the power switch...
It requires an external ARM processor, so it could be running on BREW. Then again, that would explain the strange requirement to send samples to National Coffee Testing Labs for a taste-test before you're allowed to drink a drop.
The other option is to just do iPhone-exclusive game development from the start, which right away corners you into an extremely niche and unproven market. You'd be better off developing for the portable consoles (DS, PSP, etc) which have markets large enough to actually justify this sort of device-specific exclusive game development.