

Windows Phone Marketplace bans the GPL, and the App Store should too - soofaloofa
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/02/windows-phone-marketplace-bans-the-gpl-and-the-app-store-should-too.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

======
jarin
I don't see why anyone should have a problem with this. Microsoft is well
within their rights to disallow software with certain licenses in their store,
just as developers are well within their rights to not use the GPL in their
libraries. If it's really so egregious and untenable, developers will go
elsewhere.

It's just another case of Free Software advocates trying to push their
philosophy on consumer-facing software by sensationalizing the "bad guys"
policies (i.e. Apple and Microsoft). Free Software != Open Source.

~~~
marshray
"It's just another case" of very complex software licenses which depend on
nontrivial assumptions about distribution and runtime architecture meeting up
with equally complex business requirements and legal agreements.

It's so weird how so many comments are from people completely convinced that
this a result of some grand scheme by MS to destroy "Open Source".

------
gte910h
Apple should ban explicitly _GPLv3_ software. v2 is likely compatible with the
idea of an appstore with some tweaks to the license agreement.

------
DjDarkman
I find the story like this: Microsoft is shooting itself in the foot.

Open source software is something both Microsoft and Apple should embrace. If
I were them, I would devise a way to enable even GPLv3 apps to coexist.

~~~
rimantas
Open source != GPL licensed apps. I know little about MS embracing open
source, but regarding Apple check out these:
<http://www.apple.com/opensource/> , <http://opensource.apple.com/> If I got
it right Apple has little problems with GPL apps on App store, GPL proponents
have.

~~~
technomancy
By enforcing user-hostile policies, Apple has aligned themselves as an enemy
of the GPL, even if they want to pretend they are still cozy with open source.

~~~
maxharris
The GPL (especially v3) is user-hostile because it comes between developers
and their customers. When my mom uses her computer, she doesn't give one lick
about the source code behind her word processor. She's more than happy to
trade a little bit of money for a product that _just works_ , and is easy _for
her_ to use. Fulfilling these goals while taking advantage of the latest
technology takes money, so she happily pays. She has no interest in the
"freedoms" offered by the GPL - she just wants to get her work done and get on
with her life.

I don't think my mom is less of a person (morally or otherwise) for being this
way. We're not fools because we _freely_ choose to pay a little bit of money
for a lot more convenience in our lives. Nor are we trading any freedom^ - if
we were to someday not like the terms we agree to today, we're always free to
buy or use something else in the future.

^This is something that Stallman (and a lot of other people get wrong). The
concept of freedom only applies to individuals, not to groups. Individuals
have the right to assemble into groups, but groups do not have any special
rights aside from the aggregate of the individual rights of its members. By
using regular software that we freely pay for, my mom and I are not harming
anyone. Stallman claims that we are!

