That sucks. So basically, Gnu is saying that nobody is allowed to develop for Apples platform with any GPLed code? That does not seem like freedom to me.
The GPL knows that the software will be removed from the store. So they are basically killing it to support their philosophy. That's not freedom, that's just religious ideology.
If I wrote code 10 years ago under the GPL and I want to release it now on the iPhone platform, I don't want a bunch of people to come tell me what to do or what not to do with the code I wrote. I did not sign up to a cult and have to follow their rules. When I can do what I want with my copy of my code, then that is freedom.
They're saying that if you want to use GPLed code, then you have to follow the GPL rules. Clearly the person writing that code decided to use a GPL license, instead of something more flexible like an MIT or BSD license. Thus it makes perfect sense that they force those that use that code comply with the license chosen. If they didn't, they would be doing a disservice to the code authors.
If you don't like the license, don't use code that specifically chose to use that license. There are many alternatives to libraries out there, and as a last resort you can always write your own, original, non-GPLed code that performs a similar function.
It's also my understanding that if the situation is such that you wrote the code, then you can change the license on the code you wrote and continue with that base, however, the original code is still GPLed and would remain open.
yea but most programs have some libraries. it seems unlikely that one entity will own all the code (unless you happen to be the FSF). unless the libraries are less-than GPL licensed and compatible with the App store terms, then you are stuck.
it sounds to me that in many or even most circumstances, the GPL and the App store cannot mix unless Apple makes some allowances. it would be great to hear from the FSF exactly what would be required.
As long as the libraries aren't statically linked you are okay there... at least as far as libraries that are part of the stock system goes. (otherwise we'd never be able to build against, say, a differnet libc or anything like that)
"However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable."
Certainly; if you wrote the code and still hold copyright, you can license it under whatever terms you wish. You can GPL it, but then turn around and release a proprietary version. You have this right _if_ you're the copyright holder.
From what I can tell, the person who put this app on the App Store is not the copyright holder of GNU Go. (The FSF holds copyright to most of GNU Go's code, and they'd hardly offer an app on the App Store; and if they had, they could take it down without going through this mess.)
So what we have here is someone who took someone else's code (which was made available under GPL) and then released a DRMed version of it. The FSF is saying you don't get to do that.
As long as the code is available, I don't see why the DRM should matter. As noted elsewhere in this thread, it would be great if the FSF could provide a more detailed analysis of what the AppStore distribution is lacking. As it is, it seems this would just make developers more worried about the GPL.
From what I understand, Apple is a distributor - not just the original developers.
Because Apple is distributing they have the same responsibilities as any distributor to provide the source code and allow the code to be shared.
And making people worried about the GPL shouldn't be a priority here. The GPL isn't a free-for-all license - its a very specific license which, while granting a lot of rights, also has a lot of requirements. Anybody distributing code with such a license needs to make sure they fall in line.
If the author of the app provided a link to a full source code download in the app itself and on the appstore page, wouldn't that make the whole thing compliant, at least in spirit, with the GPL? Everybody would be able to download the source, build/modify it themselves and run it in the emulator and if they have a developer certificate install it on their phone.
The FSF is saying that if the Apple Store wants to distribute a program covered by the GPL, they should comply with the GPL. Which seems reasonable.
If you wrote code 10 years ago under the GPL, you retain the copyright, and may distribute the code or the program how you please under whatever license you like. Other people do not hold the copyright, and may not distribute your program under licenses of their choosing. People and companies do dual-license fairly commonly, allowing the free software community to use and develop their product, while retaining the ability to license it commercially.
The FSF clearly does expect the software will be removed from the store, hence the linked communication. But they are not requiring it. This is somewhat more lenient than you might expect a commercial software vendor to be if their software was being illicitly distributed by Apple on the App Store.
> ... I did not sign up to a cult and have to follow their rules. When I can do what I want with my copy of my code, then that is freedom.
If you released code under the GPL, then you released code under the GPL. This means other people can't do whatever they like with the code; instead they must follow the Gnu cult rules.
However, copyright says you can do what you want with your copy of the code, including release it under whatever licences you like.
The GPL protects the code and itself, but does not restrict the owner's right to release code under any additional other licenses (except IANAL but I don't think you can revoke a GPL license.)
> That sucks. So basically, Gnu is saying that nobody is allowed to develop for Apples platform with any GPLed code?
They're saying that no one is allowed to sign away the user's rights by agreeing to something like the Apple Developer License, which allows the application to be distributed only through the App Store.
How can someone who doesn't own the code ever agree to that?
And if you're taking your own code, which you want to GPL, how can you GPL it while still agreeing to the Apple Developer License which says in Section 7.2 that you can't distribute the code, except via the App Store? What good would GPLing such an application do, when you wouldn't be allowed to give anyone the source or let them modify it?
You can still use it on Apple devices where Apple does not restrict the use and development of code, of course, such as their general purpose computers. But yeah, you're not free to develop for the iPad or iPhone without following Apple's rules. And Apple's rules appear to be in conflict with the GPL.
You can find further discussion of the incompatibilities here:
Well, if you wrote the code, you own the copyright. You can release it under any license you wish. If other people wrote the code, then they've expressed their wishes through the terms of the GPL (which haven't really changed in the last decade), and those wishes include forbidding additional licensing agreements from being put on top of the GPL (which appears to be the objection in this case).
If you apply for, and receive, Timbuktan citizenship and the next year they pass a law you don't like, you, as one of their citizens, are subject to that law. You signed up for it.
If you released code under the GPL: yes you did sign up for this 'cult'.
The GPL knows that the software will be removed from the store. So they are basically killing it to support their philosophy. That's not freedom, that's just religious ideology.
If I wrote code 10 years ago under the GPL and I want to release it now on the iPhone platform, I don't want a bunch of people to come tell me what to do or what not to do with the code I wrote. I did not sign up to a cult and have to follow their rules. When I can do what I want with my copy of my code, then that is freedom.