
No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store - tswicegood
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/no-gpl-apps-for-apples-app-store/8046
======
spiffworks
This is as it should be. You cannot create an ecosystem that is diametrically
opposed to every principle the FSF has ever stood for, and then expect to be
able to distribute GPL licensed code from it. I'm actually glad to see the GPL
working.

~~~
jrockway
Exactly. I contribute code to GPL-licensed projects, and I don't want the
users of my code to be unable to fix it; it's simply not fair to distribute
software that the end-users are not allowed to tweak and improve. When you
distribute software on the App Store, the users get the changes I made, but I
never get the chance to get changes that they would have made. Hence, a
license that prohibits this unfairness is necessary, and the GPL fits the
bill.

Don't get me wrong, I am fine with software that is BSD- or MIT- licensed. But
I think for the best culture of contribution and sharing, you need to clearly
set your expectations in the form of a license, and the GPL does exactly that.

If Apple wants the world of GPL'd code to be available on their devices, the
solution is simple -- allow side-loading.

~~~
cd34
Why are people that purchase/download your GPL app not able to get the code or
share changes? All one must do is provide a method for the client to get the
code through whatever means. The section deals with third party distribution
of binaries and obtaining the source code from the author indirectly. There is
nothing stopping one from getting hold of the SDK and compiling the code you
have distributed and installing it - they don't even need a developers
account. They can't distribute it without paying Apple the developer's fee and
submitting it to the app store, at which point it might be considered
duplicate functionality, but, that is a separate argument.

Additionally, a client that changes your app is not required to send you the
changes back unless s/he distributes it. Modifying it for his/her own purposes
doesn't mean you are entitled to a copy of their changes.

~~~
schrototo
Well, actually you _do_ need to have a developer account to install builds on
any iOS device. The 99$ fee is necessesary even for installs on your own
device.

I guess they have their reasons for not just opening up provisioning for
everybody, although doing that would sure help them win over the open source
crowd (not that they really care about that in any way).

~~~
cd34
You're right. I thought I was able to publish from the SDK I have, but, can
only run the apps in the emulator.

------
cheald
This is a good (but painful) thing. The GPL is designed to counteract the sort
distribution lockdown that the App Store represents, and it's doing its job
here. The GPL is diametrically opposed to the App Store ecosystem (buy once,
reuse/modify never), and it's a good thing that it's being enforced, even if
it does mean the loss of quality software on the iOS platform.

This really does underscore, however, how important it is to license your code
carefully. If you want to make it completely free (as in, "I don't care what
you do with it" free), use BSD. If you want to make sure that your software is
never used restrictively and that it continually promotes the free software
ethos, then GPL is a great tool.

~~~
rbanffy
> If you want to make it completely free (as in, "I don't care what you do
> with it" free), use BSD

Sadly, it's also free as "please, BigNastyCorp, feel free to take away any
freedoms from your users who depend on my work". While BSD may be "more free"
according to some, it's the freedoms of the users we are (or should be)
protecting. For those, *GPL is the license of choice.

~~~
Stormbringer
The GPL does not give a rat's patootie about users.

The GPL is designed to ensure the maximum freedoms of _developers_.

That it simultaneously destroys any hope that those same developers can enrich
themselves by selling the software is supremely ironic, as it forces them to
live as wage slaves under the whims of their corporate overlords. Thus they
gain one sort of liberty but at the expense of giving up other economic
freedoms.

Frankly if someone came up to me and said that in their ideal world I wouldn't
be able to sell software or build my own software company, I'd want to burn
them at the stake for heresy. Fortunately the world is big enough for
everyone. :D

~~~
prodigal_erik
The GPL proclaims its user-centric purpose right up front, and everything in
it is about what developers must provide to users and permit them to do.
Stallman is on record about freedom being much more important to him than
making us or himself rich. I don't know why you'd bother to accuse them of
ironically failing to achieve a goal they're clearly indifferent about.

Every time society attaches a price tag to an unlimited resource like copies
of software, we make ourselves poorer overall by minimizing our benefit from
wealth that can't be used up or worn out. In my ideal world, software is
developed as work for hire, because it's actually skilled labor that's scarce
and needs to be rationed out by the economy. Doctors don't sell medicine,
plumbers don't sell pipe, why should developers sell copies of binaries rather
than hours of work?

~~~
quadhome
> Doctors don't sell medicine, plumbers don't sell pipe, why should developers
> sell copies of binaries rather than hours of work?

Because selling copies is far more scalable and profitable?

~~~
rbanffy
I think the question is why users put up with having software that doesn't
suit their needs and that they can't fix themselves of hire someone to fix it
(like they would do with a bad plumber). It's simply because they don't know
they have an option.

The GPL proposes to give users that right. Since I am in that uncomfortable
user position a lot, I am all for it.

~~~
Stormbringer
_Users_ don't fix software, _developers_ do.

~~~
prodigal_erik
The question then becomes, can a user hire _any_ developer for a fix, rather
than being at the mercy of the original vendor? This right not only keeps
hourly rates more reasonable, but also takes away the vendor's incentive to
use bad designs that lead to customer lock-in.

For a perhaps overused metaphor, I wouldn't buy a car with the hood welded
shut.

------
alanh
Another reason to go BSD over GPL unless you really do care about the GNU
project more than shipping code & solutions.

~~~
sedachv
I drew exactly the opposite conclusion. Go with BSD if you want Apple to steal
your code and contribute back nothing to the community (how much have they
given back to Free/NetBSD?).

~~~
alanh
Darwin?

How is it stealing if it's open source, and the end result is the best desktop
OS ever created? Sheesh

And Apple's work on open source Clang/LLVM and WebKit has been quite
significant has it not?

~~~
sedachv
"Open source" is a misleading term, please stop using it:
[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-
point.h...](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html)

As pointed out in other replies, Apple is working on clang because it doesn't
want to deal with the GPL (unless you own Apple stock, you're the one losing
because of this decision), and WebKit because it's derived from LGPL code.

How much work is Apple putting into making Darwin a usable Free Software OS?
Versus how much work have Red Hat, Canonical, Novell, IBM etc. have put into
making Linux available in a number of different, free distributions? The
reason all has to do with GPL and copyleft. There is very little incentive for
companies to invest in BSD code, and no disincentive for them to steal it. If
Linux wasn't GPLed, it wouldn't be where it is today.

There's nothing wrong with what Apple is doing. However, if you think that
somehow Apple releasing some of their code under the BSD justifies restricting
their end-users to their locked-in App Store and their fight against the GPL,
there is something morally off with your thinking.

Claiming that this makes the BSD a better choice than the GPL shows that you
don't understand that Apple doesn't care about you and your open source;
they'll take whatever is convenient. You're the one losing out, and you're
justifying it to yourself as a good thing.

~~~
dgreensp
For many individual developers and most companies, a permissive free software
license like BSD may be a better choice than a restrictive one like GPL.

Companies like Google are releasing all sorts of code under BSD on the off
chance it gets used, or maybe even improved, or maybe even becomes some sort
of de facto standard. Releasing the code under GPL would mostly disincentivize
these behaviors.

~~~
sedachv
The point I'm trying to make is that you have to understand the trade-offs.
Saying GPL automatically makes it harder for others to use your code is wrong.
It depends on what you want and don't want to happen. This also completely
ignores the LGPL. Many projects licensed under BSD would benefit from being
re-licensed under the LGPL.

There's also no reason why you can't dual-license a product, or license
different parts of the same codebase under different licenses (for example, I
release the unit test files in my Free Software projects into the public
domain).

------
blasdel
This is much more about a single VLC developer spitefully griefing the others
than the GPL.

The only reason he has grounds to send C&D letters to Apple is because he
holds copyright over his contributions to VLC. The other developers don't give
a shit that the Apple-distributed binaries aren't redistributable by default,
given that the iOS port is still fully open source and is trivially
redistributable/compilable on jailbroken devices.

~~~
prodigal_erik
I have trouble believing an entire project is using the GPL yet almost nobody
cares whether most users are getting stuck with unmodifiable binaries. And
what about reused libraries? I don't believe I have any code in VLC, but if I
did I'd be livid if they decided it'd be okay to contribute it to Apple's
dystopian nightmare against my express wishes.

~~~
tbrownaw
> I have trouble believing an entire project is using the GPL yet almost
> nobody cares whether most users are getting stuck with unmodifiable
> binaries.

If a project is initially started under the GPL, it's stuck that way forever
even if they get all-new developers after a while who don't care. If a project
is started by someone new to the area, the FSF and supporters are vocal enough
that there's a decent chance they'll pick the GPL by default without really
considering it. If a project links to a GPL library, there's a decent chance
they'll bow to pressure of the FSF's overbroad redefinition of "derivative
work" and (re-)license their project as GPL regardless of their own
preferences.

It's all quite self-reinforcing and doesn't require reasoned intent from any
of the participants.

------
Dylan16807
To me this seems like a failure of the simplicity of the GPL, but with no easy
fix. Apple doesn't want to restrict the _program_ to anyone, they just want to
have their distribution process restrictive. If there was a way to proxy the
supply of the restriction-free binary and/or source code of the app there
wouldn't be a problem. The app submitter or VLC devs or another interested
party would step up to host.

~~~
pornel
They want to restrict the program — Apple forbids private APIs, system
modifications, kernel extensions, auto-updates.

Whether you need those things might be debatable, but Apple doesn't give you
freedom to have them, and adds DRM to prevent you from modifying the app.

~~~
Dylan16807
They want to restrict the syndicated developer. But the program you download
is the same open-source app you signed up for.

DRM is indeed an issue, but that goes toward the tivoization clause that VLC
explicitly did not adopt.

------
drdaeman
It's sad how many developers use /L?GPLv[23]/ licensing for their software
without actually understanding what those licenses _are about_. Then crying
out loud about "FSF destroying communities" and insisting on "oh, just don't
tell anyone about GPL incompatibilities here, because distribution is more
important."

If they consider an ability to ship the software more important than users'
freedoms (in GPL sense), they should've been using appropriate license. I'm
not saying GPL is a good or bad choice, but talking about being responsible in
(licensing) decisions and statements.

------
steauengeglase
Can't it be re-released under dual licenses? There seems to be plenty of other
software out there that has done this.

~~~
alanh
It depends on which license the code is in already and what each contributor
allows.

If you own the copyright, completely, you can license under virtually any
license, ever, at any time. Period.

But if you have an open-source project with tons of contributors, well, they
licensed their work under the terms of a specific license. And in the case of
the GPL, it explicitly means that their contributions CANNOT be redistributed
under ANY terms that conflict with the “freedoms” guaranteed to end users,
etc., by the GPL. However, you can at any time release a BSD-licensed work
under the GPL. This is part of why the GPL is sometimes called “viral” — once
it touches you, it’s hard/impossible to escape, see?

So what would have to happen would be for everyone who ever contributed to VLC
to say, “Okay, I’m chill with BSD,” and the code contributed by anyone who
refused to do so would need re-written e.g. in a cleanroom to avoid copyright
infringement. :-/

~~~
duskwuff
> So what would have to happen would be for everyone who ever contributed to
> VLC to say, “Okay, I’m chill with BSD,” and the code contributed by anyone
> who refused to do so would need re-written e.g. in a cleanroom to avoid
> copyright infringement. :-/

And since one of the VLC developers has already invoked the GPL to prevent the
distribution of an iOS version, the same developer would probably block BSD
relicensing for the same reason.

------
pwpwp
User-hostile is what it is.

~~~
Stormbringer
No, it's just programmer politics from some douchebag with an axe to grind.

Frankly, the entire open source community should pat itself on the back that
this sort of thing doesn't happen more often. People being what they are, this
is a genuine Christmas miracle.

What he _should_ do, is pull a Theo and go off and fork the project, instead
of trying to ruin it for everyone else.

------
billpg
I've made a couple of video clips and published them under cc-by.

Say someone (A) wanted to use my clip in a bigger project, but couldn't give
me attribution because someone else higher up in the bigger project (B)
insists on not crediting any outsiders.

Would it be wrong of me in this hypothetical to demand that I either be
attributed or they don't get to use my clip? Should I even feel guilty?

Bill, like anyone's going to want to use my clips of ducks quacking or sword
waving.

