
Apple picks death not compliance for open source iPhone game - chanux
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/27/gnu_go_fsf_apple_itunes/
======
credo
In the comments, I see criticism of Apple, defense of Apple, criticism of FSF
(which was downvoted below zero), open source discussions etc.

Strangely, I don't see any criticism of the app developer. The app developer
signed an agreement with Apple and agreed to its terms. They then went on to
pick up source code with the GPL2 license.

It seems reasonable to assume that the developer signed two licenses with the
full knowledge that they would have to violate one of these licenses.

~~~
zppx
Maybe he was just ignorant about the situation, recently here on HN, a
community is well above the average of the Tech related communities in web, I
have seen ignorance about copyright ownership and related subjects, so I
prefer to believe that the developer was just ignorant, the Appstore model
does nothing to educate this type of independent developer without any legal
expertise and this type of situation can arise in the future as well.

------
younata
I agree with Apple on this. If a license says that "You must do this, this,
and that" in regards to something, and you can't do "this, this, and that"
because it could kill your business model, then it makes perfect sense to
preserve your business model - one that is working very well - by sacrificing
the restrictive piece.

~~~
cgranade
That'd be fine, were it not for that Apple's choice effectively cuts off open
source software for their users as well. No one is saying that Apple should be
forced to take undue legal risks, but by making themselves the single gateway
to the iPOS platform, Apple implicitly assumes a lot of responsibility and,
yes, legal risks. If Apple doesn't want the legal risks attending to GPL
violations, then they shouldn't be the gatekeeper, period.

~~~
demallien
No. You're assigning blame to an inappropriate party here. Apple was more than
happy to make the software available, free of charge, to anyone with an
iPhoneOS device. If anyone is to blame, it's the FSF for forcing compliance to
the letter of the law rather than it's spirit.

I men _come on!_ If you have an iPhoneOS device, you can just download the
software. If you don't, the source code is freely available. How did the FSF's
actions protect consumers, or even developers? As far as I can see, it didn't.

~~~
edparcell
I see slightly differently. It would be nice to be able to have FOSS apps on
the iPhone, but I don't think anybody of the parties are acting particularly
unreasonably here.

I think the FSF is forcing compliance with the spirit of the law. As I
understand it, the point of having source code freely available is so that
_anyone_ can make modifications, use them, and further distribute them. Not
everyone will make modifications, but if everyone cannot, then no-one will.

In the case of the Go app, if you or I obtained the source code, and made
modifications for the go pieces to have some marble effect for example, then
we could not distribute those changes.

As a side note, I think it is pretty reasonable to require Apple to distribute
the source code. It is more likely that the creators of the Go go out of
business than Apple, taking their FTP site, or other source code distribution
mechanism with them. In which case the burden of distributing source code
would fall to Apple. If Apple are not willing to set up a mechanism to
distribute source code for apps now, then they would not be willing in the
case that an app producer goes out of business. While I wish it were possible
to run FOSS on the iPhone, I think t's a sensible business decision for Apple
not to undertake this contingent responsibility.

What may happen in the future is that competition from Google commoditizes the
App store, and forces Apple to open out the iPhone platform, for example by
allowing other people/companies to host their own Apps. In which case a GPL
App store may become a possibility.

~~~
tzs
"In the case of the Go app, if you or I obtained the source code, and made
modifications for the go pieces to have some marble effect for example, then
we could not distribute those changes."

What ever gave you that idea? Nothing stops you from putting your modified
source up somewhere for download, so that people who want to use it can
download it, compile it, and install it on their own phones.

------
maxharris
The title is misleading. By removing the offending app from the App store,
Apple is now in compliance - it is not violating the GPL.

------
robryan
Would have been very surprised if they changed their terms as a result of
this.

------
AlexMax
GNU Go is probably not the only app on the app store that makes use of GPL
code. In particular, Doom Classic is also based on a GPL fork of Doom called
PrBoom.

------
tzs
Ugh. The article calls Go a chess-like game, showing that the author knows
nothing of Chess or Go.

~~~
jerf
Compared to, say, Grand Theft Auto 4? Even three words dedicated to the
difference in this setting would be three words too many. In the grand space
of games, Go is a Chess-like game, Chess is a Go-like game, and both are
related to Othello/Reversi and "Chinese" checkers rather more than soccer.

~~~
tzs
Why compare Go to anything in the article? If there must be some explanation
for people who have no idea what Go is, simply calling it a strategy game
would be sufficient, and would at least be accurate.

Chess and Go are not related. They have in common a rectangular board and are
played by two players taking turns. That's about it. Saying they are like each
other in the grand scheme of things would be like saying that poker and bridge
are like each other, because they are both played with cards.

