> I've never understood the problem with (L)GPL code on iOS devices. Sure, users don't have the possibility to replace the code on that platform. But the restriction is not imposed by the people distributing the code, but by external circumstances (Apple).
That seems very forest-for-the-trees. It's true, but it mistakes a micro-statement of a problem (the app vendor isn't "at fault" for the LGPL violation) with the actual problem (copyleft code of any kind is effectively impossible on the most popular mobile platform in the industrial world).
The bottom line is that it's not possible to distribute a binary containing *GPL code on iOS in any way remotely in keeping with the letter of the license. People do it anyway because this code is important and useful. But Apple has effectively banned the license and that's always going to lead to friction like this.
Also of course section 9: "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Library or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License."
You can't legally put copyleft stuff on the App store, because the recipient can't modify the results. That we've all as a society decided to look the other way doesn't change the requirements of the license.
You've pointed me to two sections of the license, but neither directly says what you're claiming. Why don't you help us understand what your argument would be? I.e., explain how you would apply the rules in the license to the facts of iOS distribution to reach the conclusion that distribution on iOS is a per se violation?
> explain how you would apply the rules in the license to the facts of iOS distribution to reach the conclusion that distribution on iOS is a per se violation?
That's analysis is exactly backwards, and I cited the specific text in the license that calls it out. You can't distributed copyrighted works without permission, period.
Apple can't ship my code, whether it be directly or in a Play Store app, unless I let them. The LGPL specifies the terms of that permission. They're clearly in violation, since I can't download a Play Store app and modify it.
Again, we all agree to ignore this. But it's true nonetheless.
I'm sorry, but "issue-rule-application-conclusion" is the standard analytical framework for questions of this nature. You may feel that it's "backwards" but it is, objectively, simply how this works.
There is no text in the license that discusses the issue of app stores. You have every right to jump to the conclusion without any analysis of how the text of the license applies to these facts. However, you'll of course understand that—by doing so—you aren't likely to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
> I'm sorry, but "issue-rule-application-conclusion" is the standard analytical framework for questions of this nature.
Do you, heh, have any case law to that effect? No, that's silly. "You're shipping my code and have to stop" is an open and shut case. That no one has bothered to prosecute such a case against an iOS app is notable, but not proof of anything but inertia.
See, e.g., Licea v. Caraway Home Inc., 655 F. Supp. 3d 954, 968 (C.D.Cal. 2023) ("Indeed, at no point does Plaintiff bother to explain why any of his cited authorities are relevant to the instant action or how they should apply. Every law student is taught a variation on the 'issue, rule, application, conclusion' (IRAC) method for legal analysis.").
HN is for intellectual curiosity. As a result, if you want to discuss legal analysis with a lawyer on an article about a legal topic, I suggest you listen and learn, rather than insisting that others meet you in the middle on fundamental tools of analysis. And in particular, criticizing those frameworks as "arbitrary" or "made up" is dishonest and completely inappropriate.
In this case, after several days of back and forth, nobody has offered any argument for why the terms of the LGPL are incompatible with iOS apps. At this point it's pretty obvious that all of you are just trolling.
That seems very forest-for-the-trees. It's true, but it mistakes a micro-statement of a problem (the app vendor isn't "at fault" for the LGPL violation) with the actual problem (copyleft code of any kind is effectively impossible on the most popular mobile platform in the industrial world).
The bottom line is that it's not possible to distribute a binary containing *GPL code on iOS in any way remotely in keeping with the letter of the license. People do it anyway because this code is important and useful. But Apple has effectively banned the license and that's always going to lead to friction like this.