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

31–40 of 134 posts

Re: Boden – Native mobile cross-platform applications

#31

Post by dkersten »

saagarjha wrote: post #20
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 App Store adds additional restrictions on distribution in its terms of service, which is something that the GPL does not allow.

Ah, ok, this is what I was missing then. Thanks.

Re: Boden – Native mobile cross-platform applications

#32

Post by sdegutis »

jimmaswell wrote: post #25
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…

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)

It depends on what you think is "the common good".

Advocates for GPLv3 say that the common good includes ensuring that everyone has the ability to obtain and modify the source code to everything they run.

However, others say this actually infringes upon the common good, because it artificially prevents technology from developing and being used, by placing too much importance on the role of technology (and the Perfect Software ™) in the quest for human happiness.

I strongly agree with the second group.

Re: Boden – Native mobile cross-platform applications

#33

Post by Jach »

ericlewis wrote: post #15

From reading the iOS code there is already a number of bugs that will have issue, including but not limited to the iOS handling of text inputs. You won't get events / onchange firing correctly for autocorrections or when Chinese chars compact themselves. Seems like a very cool project anyway, there is a lot you could learn from react-native's approach to native components. Edit: not to mention no support for text are…

I didn't look but I suspected such issues the moment they mentioned best practices and std::string in the same paragraph... It seems like it could be a fun project but I wonder who the target audience will be. Maybe they're working with a partner? I'm thinking for others it must be new startups just starting out, since every existing company I've seen that targets both platforms with native apps inevitably seems to split the codebases into iOS and Android sides because the platforms are sufficiently different. And of those companies a subset will have a shared C++ layer where it makes sense, probably with lots of cross platform issues already ironed out such that trying to drop in this would be too risky unless it matures into a really awesome project rather than its current preview release state... Best of luck to them.

Re: Boden – Native mobile cross-platform applications

#34

Post by saagarjha »

sanxiyn wrote: post #28
saagarjha wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

I don't see how what you've quoted requires this?

Re: Boden – Native mobile cross-platform applications

#35

Post by saagarjha »

sanxiyn wrote: post #26
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.

VLC was pulled from the App Store due to its license being GPLv2 at the time.

Re: Boden – Native mobile cross-platform applications

#36

Post by KaoruAoiShiho »

sdegutis wrote: post #32
jimmaswell wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

It depends on what you think is "the common good". Advocates for GPLv3 say that the common good includes ensuring that everyone has the ability to obtain and modify the source code to everything they run. However, others say this actually infringes upon the common good, because it artificially prevents technology from developing and being used, by placing too much importance on the role of technology (and the Perfect…

Prisoner's dilemma imo. The second group only wins out here because other options exists. If everyone was forced to share all software ala GPLv3 with literally no other alternatives then we would see even more and better software everywhere (maybe).

Re: Boden – Native mobile cross-platform applications

#37

Post by Jach »

jimmaswell wrote: post #25
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…

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)

The GPL itself isn't about spiting companies or not, or even getting a particular piece of software more widely used by companies, it's about protecting the user freedoms whenever that software is used by anyone. v3 was developed because companies found an edge-case around one particular freedom with "Tivoization". The AGPL was developed because everyone found out about the edge-case of SaaS. The LGPL versions are there for when you want to compromise on the "infection" bit but not on the user freedoms of your bit.

No one forces people to use v3, and notably the linux kernel will be v2 forever. Market segments have settled against certain licenses, but others don't care. I'm glad developers have choices.

The choice to use a particular variant of the GPL may be an effort to spite companies. Personally I'm looking forward to the next iteration of MS's stewardship of GitHub in the hopes that they add a "buy a license" button so devs can make sure freedoms are protected in the general case but also make money by giving alternate licenses to companies that were never going to contribute anything back anyway but may benefit the common good in some other way.

For what it's worth I'm not entirely sure the grandparent's account on code signing is the issue with GPL on iOS, but I'm not a mobile developer so I'm relying on memory of reading other accounts. My prior belief was that it was simply that the end-to-end process of putting a release build of your app on the app store involves integrating Apple-copyrighted code which they don't want to become infected by the GPL and so they don't allow distributing apps under the GPL. Even though side-loading isn't as easy as Android you can still do it with a developer build, so it can't just be some issue of cloning a GPL repo that's 99.9% shared by an app store app and building and using your version locally...

Re: Boden – Native mobile cross-platform applications

#38

Post by lazerwalker »

sanxiyn wrote: post #26
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.

Apple's App Store licensing agreement allows you to distribute GPL v2 software. However, the GPL v2 license does not allow distribution under Apple's licensing terms.

It's possible to have GPL v2-licensed software on the App Store, but it essentially requires relicensing or dual licensing by the copyright holder (which is what they do here with selling a commercial license to distribute).

Post reply on HN