

The GPL, the App Store, and You - shawndumas
http://i.tuaw.com/2011/01/09/the-gpl-the-app-store-and-you/

======
blasdel
What's so funny about all this is that the distribution constraints of the App
Store do not make it incompatible with the GPLv2. Having to pay Apple $99/year
for keys is irrelevant, as is the signing of binaries that prevents
redistribution between devices (and even if those were problems, there's
jailbreaking). Hell, it wouldn't violate the GPLv2 even if there was no way
for users to get their code on the device at all (see TiVo, et. al.). It's
unfortunate that all the early discussion of this was laser-focused on the
irrelevant DRM.

Rémi's argument is that the Apple Store Terms & Conditions constrain your
usage rights — _"YOU SHALL BE AUTHORIZED TO USE THE PRODUCTS ONLY FOR
PERSONAL, NONCOMMERCIAL USE."_ — and downstream authors/distributors are not
allowed to _"impose any further restrictions"_ beyond the GPL.

Rémi is technically correct (the best kind of correct!) that the App Store
terms are in conflict with the GPL. The clause in question isn't just for
apps, its basic purpose is that purchasing a song or movie from Apple doesn't
give you public performance rights to it. Apple could pay their lawyers to
bloat out the whole usage section so that it'd be difficult for Rémi to pick a
fight over it, but they probably won't.

But if people are going to pick fights over minor unenforceable EULA terms,
they're going to find them everywhere they look. I mean for fuck's sake you
also agree that you will not use iPhone software in the operation of nuclear
facilities or for aircraft navigation, like in a great many EULAs. If some
ideologue really wants to burn it all down they could probably find a ton of
high-profile but ultimately pointless technical GPL violations in this vein.

Wherever a fight is sought it will be found. No copyright license will ever
prevent either upstream or downstream from being huge asshats if that's what
they want to be.

~~~
ijuhygtfhyuj
Remi's arguements were an attempt to get Apple to change the 'personal non-
commercial part' of it's licence to something more open.

But I suspect that Apple removing VLC has more to do with controlling what
formats you can play, and so where you can buy content, rather than a desire
to protect VLC's GPL contributions.

Interesting that the super hacker cool Apple have effectively banned GPL from
their popular platform and with the Mac iStore may soon be banning it from all
their machines. While MSFT is announcing more open source support. Looks like
the lightsaber of the dark side has been passed on.

~~~
jedsmith
Apple didn't ban the GPL from the App Store.

The GPL banned the GPL from the App Store.

~~~
gloob
Their rules are mutually incompatible.

~~~
jedsmith
Which changes nothing, as it still isn't a conscious act by Apple to
explicitly ban the GPL.

The GPL banned itself from the App Store, plain and simple, yet everybody will
still make it about big bad Apple censoring libre software from the App Store.
You chose the GPL when you started your project, Apple didn't. If the license
that YOU chose for YOUR software doesn't allow you to distribute YOUR software
under Apple's EULA, that isn't Apple's fault.

There's also no financial incentive for them to modify their EULA to be more
GPL-friendly. They're going to say, gee, those hundreds of thousands of apps
on the App Store have succeeded with the EULA we have, why get into legal
battles over two publicized apps? The publicity is negative for us, so why
bother?

~~~
ijuhygtfhyuj
On the same basis the USA bans GPL software, you aren't allowed to export
stuff to naughty countries if you are American. The GPL doesn't allow you to
block Cuba so nobody in the US is legally allowed to use GPL.

This doesn't seem to led to IBM, Oracle etc stopping selling Linux. Apple put
a line in it's\ EULA about only being able to use app store for non-commercial
use, which is ridiculous businessmen do use iPhones and iPads

------
spot
I am still baffled by this term:

(i) You may download and sync a Product for personal, noncommercial use on any
Apple-branded products running iOS ("iOS Product") you own or control.

Doesn't that mean that you can't make commercial use of iOS apps? Isn't that
ridiculous?

~~~
blasdel
'Products' aren't just iOS apps — the category also includes purchased music,
movies, television, audiobooks, and iPod games; as well as rentals of movies &
television, iTunes U content, and probably more that I'm forgetting.

For the rest of it they'd never be able to publish it without something
substantially similar to the "personal, noncommercial use" clause.

Yes, for apps they should probably totally defer to the application authors,
instead of just letting them be more restrictive if they so choose.

~~~
spot
And until they "defer" anyone who say uses twitter to promote their business
is in violation of the ToS?

------
bugsy
I have to call out the whole referenced article as BS. The situation is that
Rene filed the complaint, and after Apple complied with Rene's request, Rene
then blogged that Apple was being mean by removing the app, as he had
requested.

Sorry but there is no honest interpretation here in which Apple is the bad guy
and long winded articles claiming so because they only tell half the story are
dishonest.

~~~
jedsmith
It's a lot easier to blame Apple, and people love doing it.

In the other thread I was absolutely appalled that the leader of the project
was shifting all of the blame to Apple, and standing by his choice to do so.
Just look at all of the comments on Hacker News (one in this thread) reviling
Apple for their supposed "anti-GPL stance".

Clearly, the VideoLAN people got what they wanted: the app removed, and pie in
the face for Apple with respect to the GPL. Two wins for the price of one?

Link: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2083254>

