
Miro Video Converter (GPL license) now in the App Store - gglanzani
http://mirovideoconverter.com/
======
drivebyacct2
I thought the terms of the App Store and the GPL were incompatible...

~~~
zppx
BeTrains is a GPL software, and the iOS version is in the App Store.

In my opinion GPL software is incompatible with the App Store in general, for
paid applications it's even more explicit, the GPL gives you the right to
distribute the compiled software as you wish, a paid app cannot be distributed
for more than 5 devices as far as I understand.

Of course there's exceptions, if every copyright holders do agree, they can
give GPL exceptions for distributors, such as Apple, another situation like
that exists if the software contain copyrighted artwork that's not under the
GPL, then you can distribute the code freely but not the artwork (and as such
any binary that contains this artwork), there's various complications, I think
a lawyer can give more explanation about this situation.

EDIT: I'm not sure but I think the GPL contain terms that regulates non-source
forms, there are also terms that complicates distributors from limiting user's
freedoms, as the GPL define freedoms, although I believe the last case is void
if the copyright holders give exceptions to the distributor.

EDIT2: Correction for BeTrains.

~~~
fluidcruft
You're correct. GPL regulates non-source forms (section 6--Conveying Non-
Source Forms). However, I think in this case it's the anti-TiVoization clauses
that interfere with the App Store DRM.

~~~
tzs
I don't see how the anti-Tivoication clause is incompatible with DRM in
general. It only seems to be incompatible with DRM on bundled software:

    
    
        If you convey an object code work under this section in,
        or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and
        the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which
        the right of possession and use of the User Product is
        transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed
        term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized),
        the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must
        be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this
        requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third
        party retains the ability to install modified object
        code on the User Product (for example, the work has
        been installed in ROM).
    

Optional add-ons for a device sold in separate transactions after the sale of
the device on which they run would not be transactions "in which the right of
possession and use of the User Product is transferred".

~~~
fluidcruft
An iOS device running a third-party download does not constitute a User
Product. Otherwise, I don't understand what you're getting at. Yes, there are
DRM exceptions in the GPL (mostly to allow use in things like medical
devices).

Even if we assume an App by itself constitutes a User Product, then when you
purchase an App Store app, you're allowed to install it on your phone
(possession) and run it (use)? But that's a big stretch. I'm just trying to
understand your point.

~~~
tzs
The point is that the anti-tivoization provision does not appear to be
relevant to IOS devices. The anti-tivoization provision is to stop
manufacturers of devices that ship with GPL code from using DRM to prevent use
of modifications to that code. It does not seem to prohibit using DRM to lock
down GPL code that does not ship with the device.

~~~
fluidcruft
That's what I thought you were trying to argue and I don't think you're right.
Even software that does not ship with the device is covered by the GPL.
Because of the new anti-DRM features of GPLv3, there is a new "loophole" that
allows a limited locked down for software shipped with the device--essentially
protecting some actions that were allowed under GPLv2 from the new anti-DRM
provisions present inf GPLv3. While I agree that the loophole does not apply
here, that does not at all mean that the rest of the GPL is not in force.

You should read the FSF's position on the App Store. They have stated that it
is sufficient to rely on the "no additional restrictions" provisions in
deciding that both GPLv2 and GPLv3 software cannot be distributed there.
However, sufficiency is not equivalent to necessity and the FSF also mentions
that GPLv3 provides additional conflicts specifically related to the App Store
DRM.

