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

No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 94 posts

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#31

Post by prodigal_erik »

blasdel wrote: post #17

This is much more about a single VLC developer spitefully griefing the others than the GPL. The only reason he has grounds to send C&D letters to Apple is because he holds copyright over his contributions to VLC. The other developers don't give a shit that the Apple-distributed binaries aren't redistributable by default, given that the iOS port is still fully open source and is trivially redistributable/compilable on…

I have trouble believing an entire project is using the GPL yet almost nobody cares whether most users are getting stuck with unmodifiable binaries. And what about reused libraries? I don't believe I have any code in VLC, but if I did I'd be livid if they decided it'd be okay to contribute it to Apple's dystopian nightmare against my express wishes.

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#32

Post by dgreensp »

sedachv wrote: post #19
alanh wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Darwin? How is it stealing if it's open source, and the end result is the best desktop OS ever created? Sheesh And Apple's work on open source Clang/LLVM and WebKit has been quite significant has it not?

"Open source" is a misleading term, please stop using it: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h... As pointed out in other replies, Apple is working on clang because it doesn't want to deal with the GPL (unless you own Apple stock, you're the one losing because of this decision), and WebKit because it's derived from LGPL code. How much work is Apple putting into making Darwin a usable Free Soft…

For many individual developers and most companies, a permissive free software license like BSD may be a better choice than a restrictive one like GPL.

Companies like Google are releasing all sorts of code under BSD on the off chance it gets used, or maybe even improved, or maybe even becomes some sort of de facto standard. Releasing the code under GPL would mostly disincentivize these behaviors.

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#33

Post by alextgordon »

ajross wrote: post #14
alanh wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Darwin? How is it stealing if it's open source, and the end result is the best desktop OS ever created? Sheesh And Apple's work on open source Clang/LLVM and WebKit has been quite significant has it not?

WebKit is a descendant of KHTML, and thus LGPL by requirement. I have a hard time believing Apple would have ever opened this technology had they developed it internally.

That seems a little unfair and speculative. Maybe they would have, maybe they wouldn't've. All we can say for sure is they did.

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#34

Post by cheald »

This is a good (but painful) thing. The GPL is designed to counteract the sort distribution lockdown that the App Store represents, and it's doing its job here. The GPL is diametrically opposed to the App Store ecosystem (buy once, reuse/modify never), and it's a good thing that it's being enforced, even if it does mean the loss of quality software on the iOS platform.

This really does underscore, however, how important it is to license your code carefully. If you want to make it completely free (as in, "I don't care what you do with it" free), use BSD. If you want to make sure that your software is never used restrictively and that it continually promotes the free software ethos, then GPL is a great tool.

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#35

Post by cd34 »

jrockway wrote: post #24
spiffworks wrote: post #21

This is as it should be. You cannot create an ecosystem that is diametrically opposed to every principle the FSF has ever stood for, and then expect to be able to distribute GPL licensed code from it. I'm actually glad to see the GPL working.

Exactly. I contribute code to GPL-licensed projects, and I don't want the users of my code to be unable to fix it; it's simply not fair to distribute software that the end-users are not allowed to tweak and improve. When you distribute software on the App Store, the users get the changes I made, but I never get the chance to get changes that they would have made. Hence, a license that prohibits this unfairness is nec…

Why are people that purchase/download your GPL app not able to get the code or share changes? All one must do is provide a method for the client to get the code through whatever means. The section deals with third party distribution of binaries and obtaining the source code from the author indirectly. There is nothing stopping one from getting hold of the SDK and compiling the code you have distributed and installing it - they don't even need a developers account. They can't distribute it without paying Apple the developer's fee and submitting it to the app store, at which point it might be considered duplicate functionality, but, that is a separate argument.

Additionally, a client that changes your app is not required to send you the changes back unless s/he distributes it. Modifying it for his/her own purposes doesn't mean you are entitled to a copy of their changes.

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#36

Post by tbrownaw »

prodigal_erik wrote: post #31
blasdel wrote: post #17

This is much more about a single VLC developer spitefully griefing the others than the GPL. The only reason he has grounds to send C&D letters to Apple is because he holds copyright over his contributions to VLC. The other developers don't give a shit that the Apple-distributed binaries aren't redistributable by default, given that the iOS port is still fully open source and is trivially redistributable/compilable on…

I have trouble believing an entire project is using the GPL yet almost nobody cares whether most users are getting stuck with unmodifiable binaries. And what about reused libraries? I don't believe I have any code in VLC, but if I did I'd be livid if they decided it'd be okay to contribute it to Apple's dystopian nightmare against my express wishes.

> I have trouble believing an entire project is using the GPL yet almost nobody cares whether most users are getting stuck with unmodifiable binaries.

If a project is initially started under the GPL, it's stuck that way forever even if they get all-new developers after a while who don't care. If a project is started by someone new to the area, the FSF and supporters are vocal enough that there's a decent chance they'll pick the GPL by default without really considering it. If a project links to a GPL library, there's a decent chance they'll bow to pressure of the FSF's overbroad redefinition of "derivative work" and (re-)license their project as GPL regardless of their own preferences.

It's all quite self-reinforcing and doesn't require reasoned intent from any of the participants.

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#37

Post by cperciva »

sedachv wrote: post #3
alanh wrote: post #2

Another reason to go BSD over GPL unless you really do care about the GNU project more than shipping code & solutions.

I drew exactly the opposite conclusion. Go with BSD if you want Apple to steal your code and contribute back nothing to the community (how much have they given back to Free/NetBSD?).

FreeBSD developer here.

Apple contributes back lots.

We're very happy that the BSD license has allowed Apple to use our code.

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#38

Post by jsz0 »

jrockway wrote: post #24
spiffworks wrote: post #21

This is as it should be. You cannot create an ecosystem that is diametrically opposed to every principle the FSF has ever stood for, and then expect to be able to distribute GPL licensed code from it. I'm actually glad to see the GPL working.

Exactly. I contribute code to GPL-licensed projects, and I don't want the users of my code to be unable to fix it; it's simply not fair to distribute software that the end-users are not allowed to tweak and improve. When you distribute software on the App Store, the users get the changes I made, but I never get the chance to get changes that they would have made. Hence, a license that prohibits this unfairness is nec…

What if the source code is available through the developer's website?

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#39

Post by jsz0 »

buster wrote: post #29
sad wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

llvm, clang, webkit... Directly benefiting FreeBSD: http://wiki.freebsd.org/BuildingFreeBSDWithClang They've contributed infinitely more than "nothing" back. Literally...

Because they have no choice..

Read the BSD license. They definitely have a choice.

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#40

Post by Dylan16807 »

pornel wrote: post #23
Dylan16807 wrote: post #20

To me this seems like a failure of the simplicity of the GPL, but with no easy fix. Apple doesn't want to restrict the program to anyone, they just want to have their distribution process restrictive. If there was a way to proxy the supply of the restriction-free binary and/or source code of the app there wouldn't be a problem. The app submitter or VLC devs or another interested party would step up to host.

They want to restrict the program — Apple forbids private APIs, system modifications, kernel extensions, auto-updates. Whether you need those things might be debatable, but Apple doesn't give you freedom to have them, and adds DRM to prevent you from modifying the app.

They want to restrict the syndicated developer. But the program you download is the same open-source app you signed up for.

DRM is indeed an issue, but that goes toward the tivoization clause that VLC explicitly did not adopt.

Post reply on HN