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.
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.
Apple only cut off a small bit of open source software after the religious zealots decided it would be a good PR move to make an issue of it.
And who is anybody to say what Apple can or can't do with their brilliant platform that they invested in and worked hard on? Apple is a business, not a religion. They don't want the legal risks, so they cut the app. They don't close up shop or make bad decisions because of vague philosophy from a crusty old engineer and his crusty old beard.
good PR move? I'm sick of this Apple love and hate meaningless discussion, please stop you all, this is insane.
GNU has the copyright ownership over Gnu Go, if they wish they could seal the only saved copy of the source code in a safe and throw it into the sea, it's their software and they can do whatever they want, this includes enforcing the license they released their software under, the same way you can do whatever you want with your software, and I see that you made some great software.
It's funny you can say all of that with a straight face.
You are indeed correct - GNU can do whatever they want with the software, and what they chose to do in this case was two-fold 1) embarrass Apple and 2) prevent people from using free software.
If anyone is to blame here it is GNU, for choosing philosophy over the utility of people.
The whole point of my comment was that these [Apple-related] flames that are appearing in HN in the last 3 months or so are a great disgrace for this community, this is motive of the gross exaggeration in my comment, and the motivation of my 1st paragraph.
I thought about including a paragraph about how GNU handled the case but I just found that it could contribute to a flame war that I have no interest in participate, I'm not a fan of GNU, I do not want to defend GNU or the FSF.
It's their platform they can decide what they want on it and what they don't unfortunately. I would love to see all of my favorite GNU/sourceforge/github apps running on Apple products, but this isn't going to happen. This is why I'm not buying another iPod after my 2nd gen one died, and also sold my Macbook.
I dont like the pointy and clicky interface (yes I know Darwin is underneath), and since I don't like it I use my PC based HTPC/desktop/laptop at home running Ubuntu and am perfectly fine with it.
Not all companies are going to take the RMS route and make their bread and butter 100% free for anyone to use from day one and think they will be in business for more than a month. I love OSS and everything about it, but I understand the business reasons too and since I just don't like the products that Apple forces me to use, I just dont use them. Capitalism at work right?
Yeah, there's certainly not open source apps running on OS X. Nothing of the kind. Apple certainly doesn't contribute heavily to open source projects like WebKit or LLVM either.
I never said anything about Jobs and company exhaustively banning anything and everything covered under the GPL or similar. Please fold up the Jump To Conclusions mat.
I have some doubts if LGPL used by WebKit fails under the same restrictions that GNU pointed in the case of Gnu Go, LGPL does have some of the same requirements of GPL, I believe it does not and do not have the interest to push the subject further.
EDIT: And I'm sure that Apple lawyers checked the situation before.
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.
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.
"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.
Yes, Apple is more than happy to make the software available free of charge, but with the gargantuan caveat that they add their own restrictions in the App Store license terms. In particular, these new restrictions are very un-GPL. For instance, can a user that downloads GNU Go via App Store then redistribute that app?
More to the point, the GPL was written the way it was for a reason, and the FSF should not be expected to ignore the terms of the GPL just because it'd be inconvenient to Apple. By standing up for their ability to enforce GPL terms, the FSF did directly attempt to protect consumers and developers. At the least, they showed quite well that Apple is not on the side of either the users or the developers.
This has nothing to do with providing source. The GPL violation is due to the requirement that you have to agree not to redistribute things you download from the App Store.
Oh, in that case it's even easier because Apple could add a clause saying that app licenses override the default App Store EULA if they are more permissive.
The anti-Tivoization clause is also a problem. That means that if I buy your GPLv3 app from the app store, you have to give me the source code, and I have to be able to run it on my iPhone without jailbreaking or buying an Apple developer license. Not being able to run your own code on your own device is what precludes GPLv3 apps from being distributed in the App Store.
As someone who has made public GPLv3 code, I am very happy about this. If my users can't send me patches that they've actually tested, they are useless.
I don't think the anti-Tivoization clause would apply. The anti-Tivoization clause applies only in this situation:
"If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information"
The purpose of the anti-Tivoization provisions is to stop hardware vendors from including GPLv3 firmware in their device that they can update but you can't, and it is fairly narrowly tailored to try to accomplish that.
> you have to agree not to redistribute things you download from the App Store.
That's right, they could simply add a "unless the license specifically allows you to do so" line, wouldn't cost them much. I wonder how many gpl software there are on the app store.
I think the issue was with the limitation that the app can only be installed on up to five devices. The requirement to provide the source code could easily be satisfied by a download link on the app's homepage (which is accessible from iTunes).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
35 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 81.8 ms ] threadAnd who is anybody to say what Apple can or can't do with their brilliant platform that they invested in and worked hard on? Apple is a business, not a religion. They don't want the legal risks, so they cut the app. They don't close up shop or make bad decisions because of vague philosophy from a crusty old engineer and his crusty old beard.
GNU has the copyright ownership over Gnu Go, if they wish they could seal the only saved copy of the source code in a safe and throw it into the sea, it's their software and they can do whatever they want, this includes enforcing the license they released their software under, the same way you can do whatever you want with your software, and I see that you made some great software.
You are indeed correct - GNU can do whatever they want with the software, and what they chose to do in this case was two-fold 1) embarrass Apple and 2) prevent people from using free software.
If anyone is to blame here it is GNU, for choosing philosophy over the utility of people.
I thought about including a paragraph about how GNU handled the case but I just found that it could contribute to a flame war that I have no interest in participate, I'm not a fan of GNU, I do not want to defend GNU or the FSF.
I dont like the pointy and clicky interface (yes I know Darwin is underneath), and since I don't like it I use my PC based HTPC/desktop/laptop at home running Ubuntu and am perfectly fine with it.
Not all companies are going to take the RMS route and make their bread and butter 100% free for anyone to use from day one and think they will be in business for more than a month. I love OSS and everything about it, but I understand the business reasons too and since I just don't like the products that Apple forces me to use, I just dont use them. Capitalism at work right?
"This is why I... sold my Macbook"
oops.
EDIT: And I'm sure that Apple lawyers checked the situation before.
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.
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.
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.
More to the point, the GPL was written the way it was for a reason, and the FSF should not be expected to ignore the terms of the GPL just because it'd be inconvenient to Apple. By standing up for their ability to enforce GPL terms, the FSF did directly attempt to protect consumers and developers. At the least, they showed quite well that Apple is not on the side of either the users or the developers.
As someone who has made public GPLv3 code, I am very happy about this. If my users can't send me patches that they've actually tested, they are useless.
"If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information"
The purpose of the anti-Tivoization provisions is to stop hardware vendors from including GPLv3 firmware in their device that they can update but you can't, and it is fairly narrowly tailored to try to accomplish that.
That's right, they could simply add a "unless the license specifically allows you to do so" line, wouldn't cost them much. I wonder how many gpl software there are on the app store.
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.
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.