Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boden – Native mobile cross-platform applications

boden.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 134 posts

Re: Boden – Native mobile cross-platform applications

#21

Post by invokestatic »

dkersten wrote: post #16
detaro wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. GPL apps can't go into the app store, because it's terms of use forbid activities that can't be forbidden according to GPL.

I don't quite understand this. The GPL gives the end user the rights to the source, to modify the source and to redistribute the software (modified or otherwise), as long as they make the source available. It doesn't say it has to be available through the exact same mechanism that you received the software in the first place, nor does it say that you have to release your changed software through the same mechanism. I…

The main difference between GPLv2 and v3 is the prevention of “TiVoization”. The background is that TiVo I believe was using the Linux kernel in their devices, and despite the fact that they were contributing their changes back to the community, they used code signing, or some other technical measure, to prevent end-users from running a custom version of the Linux kernel. So in reaction to this, GPLv3 was released that explicitly prohibits this behavior — that is, there must not be any technical measure preventing the user from using a modified version of the GPL’d software.

On iOS, Apple enforced code signing on all apps, so a user cannot download an app’s source, modify it, and use it on their device. Code signing prevents that, therefore would be a violation of GPL.

Re: Boden – Native mobile cross-platform applications

#22

Post by sidewinder128 »

dkersten wrote: post #16
detaro wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. GPL apps can't go into the app store, because it's terms of use forbid activities that can't be forbidden according to GPL.

I don't quite understand this. The GPL gives the end user the rights to the source, to modify the source and to redistribute the software (modified or otherwise), as long as they make the source available. It doesn't say it has to be available through the exact same mechanism that you received the software in the first place, nor does it say that you have to release your changed software through the same mechanism. I…

You have good points and I guess you are not missing anything but Check the VLC case with the App store term of services, they pulled the app from the Store. It is really hard to deal with Apple. your app could be rejected and not accepted because it uses the GPL on it. Apple folks are scared of GPL.

Re: Boden – Native mobile cross-platform applications

#23

Post by saagarjha »

invokestatic wrote: post #21
dkersten wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't quite understand this. The GPL gives the end user the rights to the source, to modify the source and to redistribute the software (modified or otherwise), as long as they make the source available. It doesn't say it has to be available through the exact same mechanism that you received the software in the first place, nor does it say that you have to release your changed software through the same mechanism. I…

The main difference between GPLv2 and v3 is the prevention of “TiVoization”. The background is that TiVo I believe was using the Linux kernel in their devices, and despite the fact that they were contributing their changes back to the community, they used code signing, or some other technical measure, to prevent end-users from running a custom version of the Linux kernel. So in reaction to this, GPLv3 was released th…

> a user cannot download an app’s source, modify it, and use it on their device

But I can do this for open source apps? More specifically (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and I don't know if this has been tested in court), I personally don't see the GPL requiring that I be able to modify the exact, signed binary that I was shipped if I can create an equivalent one myself.

Re: Boden – Native mobile cross-platform applications

#25

Post by jimmaswell »

invokestatic wrote: post #21
dkersten wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't quite understand this. The GPL gives the end user the rights to the source, to modify the source and to redistribute the software (modified or otherwise), as long as they make the source available. It doesn't say it has to be available through the exact same mechanism that you received the software in the first place, nor does it say that you have to release your changed software through the same mechanism. I…

The main difference between GPLv2 and v3 is the prevention of “TiVoization”. The background is that TiVo I believe was using the Linux kernel in their devices, and despite the fact that they were contributing their changes back to the community, they used code signing, or some other technical measure, to prevent end-users from running a custom version of the Linux kernel. So in reaction to this, GPLv3 was released th…

So it's less about the common good and more about spiting companies (who are just never going to use this v3 code now so nothing was accomplished except wasting dev time on a global scale)

Re: Boden – Native mobile cross-platform applications

#26

Post by sanxiyn »

sidewinder128 wrote: post #8

It looked very promising but GPL for mobile iOS and Android Apps It is impossible, even I release the Apps free it is very difficult to work with GPL on those ecosystems. It is sad because it really looks very cool code.

This seems available under GPL v2. v2 is okay with App Store.

Re: Boden – Native mobile cross-platform applications

#28

Post by sanxiyn »

saagarjha wrote: post #23
invokestatic wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main difference between GPLv2 and v3 is the prevention of “TiVoization”. The background is that TiVo I believe was using the Linux kernel in their devices, and despite the fact that they were contributing their changes back to the community, they used code signing, or some other technical measure, to prevent end-users from running a custom version of the Linux kernel. So in reaction to this, GPLv3 was released th…

> a user cannot download an app’s source, modify it, and use it on their device But I can do this for open source apps? More specifically (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and I don't know if this has been tested in court), I personally don't see the GPL requiring that I be able to modify the exact , signed binary that I was shipped if I can create an equivalent one myself.

GPL v3 very clearly requires it. "Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information".

Re: Boden – Native mobile cross-platform applications

#30

Post by dkersten »

sidewinder128 wrote: post #22
dkersten wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't quite understand this. The GPL gives the end user the rights to the source, to modify the source and to redistribute the software (modified or otherwise), as long as they make the source available. It doesn't say it has to be available through the exact same mechanism that you received the software in the first place, nor does it say that you have to release your changed software through the same mechanism. I…

You have good points and I guess you are not missing anything but Check the VLC case with the App store term of services, they pulled the app from the Store. It is really hard to deal with Apple. your app could be rejected and not accepted because it uses the GPL on it. Apple folks are scared of GPL.

Apple saying "you can't have GPL on the app store" is different from "you can't have GPL on app store because there are app store license things that conflict with GPL license things". Apple can restrict their store however they want, but I was wondering if the GPL itself is incompatible with the app store license (which is what the comment I replied to sounded like it was saying).
Post reply on HN