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

41–50 of 94 posts

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#41

Post by schrototo »

cd34 wrote: post #35
jrockway wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, actually you do need to have a developer account to install builds on any iOS device. The 99$ fee is necessesary even for installs on your own device.

I guess they have their reasons for not just opening up provisioning for everybody, although doing that would sure help them win over the open source crowd (not that they really care about that in any way).

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#42

Post by tbrownaw »

mcantelon wrote: post #27
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.

It's not about advancing the GNU project as much as advancing the values expressed in the GPL: allowing your software to be built on by those who agree to return the favor. There's nothing wrong with reciprocity.

> values expressed in the GPL: allowing your software to be built on by those who agree to return the favor.

GPL3 has gone far beyond that; instead of just requiring that the software be usable as a starting point and building block for new work, it now also mandates that it be user-serviceable. You don't just need to be allowed to modify the tivo software to make your own dvr, now you also need to be able to modify the software in-place on your existing device.

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#43

Post by wzdd »

cheald wrote: post #34

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 import…

I'm not entirely convinced about this, so perhaps someone can help me out. If I contribute to a BSD-licensed project but don't assign copyright, wouldn't that give me the right to ask Apple to remove the project from their store on copyright grounds, assuming somebody submitted it there? What does the GPL have to do with it, in general? (I realise the specifics of this case are slightly different.)

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#44

Post by cd34 »

schrototo wrote: post #41
cd34 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, actually you do need to have a developer account to install builds on any iOS device. The 99$ fee is necessesary even for installs on your own device. I guess they have their reasons for not just opening up provisioning for everybody, although doing that would sure help them win over the open source crowd (not that they really care about that in any way).

You're right. I thought I was able to publish from the SDK I have, but, can only run the apps in the emulator.

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#45

Post by tbrownaw »

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…

> "Open source" is a misleading term, please stop using it

It's less confusing/misleading than free-as-in-beer vs free-as-in-speech vs free-as-in-dammit-you-cant-do-that-tivo.

> 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)

Have you seen the sh##t g++ provides for error messages? clang++ is a massive improvement.

> There is very little incentive for companies to invest in BSD code, and no disincentive for them to steal it.

Which is of course why http://www.postgresql.org/community/contributors/ only includes people working out of their mothers' basements, why http://www.sqlite.org/index.html doesn't show any corporate sponsors, and why BSD died years ago...

> If Linux wasn't GPLed, it wouldn't be where it is today.

Yeah, I think the original license had something about "no commercial use" in it.

> think that somehow Apple releasing some of their code under the BSD justifies restricting their end-users to their locked-in App Store

I don't see how there's any relation between those?

> shows that you don't understand that Apple doesn't care about you and your open source; they'll take whatever is convenient

"Caring" is an emotion, which organizations don't seem to have.

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#46

Post by duskwuff »

alanh wrote: post #8
steauengeglase wrote: post #6

Can't it be re-released under dual licenses? There seems to be plenty of other software out there that has done this.

It depends on which license the code is in already and what each contributor allows. If you own the copyright, completely, you can license under virtually any license, ever, at any time. Period. But if you have an open-source project with tons of contributors, well, they licensed their work under the terms of a specific license. And in the case of the GPL, it explicitly means that their contributions CANNOT be redist…

> So what would have to happen would be for everyone who ever contributed to VLC to say, “Okay, I’m chill with BSD,” and the code contributed by anyone who refused to do so would need re-written e.g. in a cleanroom to avoid copyright infringement. :-/

And since one of the VLC developers has already invoked the GPL to prevent the distribution of an iOS version, the same developer would probably block BSD relicensing for the same reason.

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#47

Post by saurik »

vasi wrote: post #15
saurik wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As somebody who actually has to use Apple's "open source" website, you have to realize that the code for the projects listed there is often: a) out of date or unrealized (for which they are entitled to do with BSD code, but when it comes to GPL I file complaints) b) redacted and uncompilable (they purposely remove source code for specific targets that is still listed in the build environment, or hold back critical he…

I mostly agree with you, but you're incorrect about WebCore/WebKit. For the first couple of years of WebKit development, Apple did indeed only release WebCore, but since 2005 all of WebKit has been released. Otherwise, how could Gnome (Epiphany), KDE (rekonq), Chromium, etc be using it?

Apple keeps an internal fork of WebKit that has numerous abilities not in their public trees, which happens to be why Android and WebOS both have totally incompatible mechanisms for adding multi-touch support to JavaScript despite iOS having been out with that functionality for years prior.

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#48

Post by [deleted] »

dgreensp wrote: post #32
sedachv wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

[deleted]

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#49

Post by saurik »

foljs wrote: post #16
saurik wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As somebody who actually has to use Apple's "open source" website, you have to realize that the code for the projects listed there is often: a) out of date or unrealized (for which they are entitled to do with BSD code, but when it comes to GPL I file complaints) b) redacted and uncompilable (they purposely remove source code for specific targets that is still listed in the build environment, or hold back critical he…

1) (a) and (b) Applies mostly to the Darwin source. Apple doesn't provide you with the latest sources before it has it released commercially. Big f'n surprise. Not many people are interested in Darwin anyways. (c) Actually, you can get the WebKit code and build it, and you'll have a WebKit browser to run. I've done it. Don't know what you are talking about. Did you expect the whole code for Safari? They sure give eno…

1) a/b: The original poster explicitly stated "on Apple's open source website", to which I also explicitly limited my statements.

1) c: Unfortunately, this is not generally true: Apple keeps an internal fork of WebKit that has numerous abilities not in their public trees, which happens to be why Android and WebOS both have totally incompatible mechanisms for adding multi-touch support to JavaScript despite iOS having been out with that functionality for years prior.

To be quite explicit, I dare you to find and recompile WebKit for iOS. Mobile is where all the action is these days, and Apple knows that: deal with it.

2) All but one of the previous gcc contributors from Apple are no longer allowed to read the gcc-patches mailing list, and they are also not allowed to work with any code from gcc 4.3+: Apple is now permanently locked at gcc 4.2 and cannot even backport changes from gcc 4.2.2 (as this was re-marked as GPLv3 when it was released). This is a serious /serious/ problem for Apple, as they /need/ a compiler.

3) I don't understand in the slightest why improvements to the debugger, an external analyzer, or better syntax completion in the IDE, have anything at all to do with the core compiler.

4) I'm sorry, but this has been my impression as a toolchain integrator and distribution vendor. LLVM, which only even supports two platforms (although having seriously broken semi-support for ARM) is often stated to be "catching up" in correctness to gcc, but is not there yet. The opinion that LLVM is somehow epic is something you only hear from incredibly pro-Apple developers. I mean, even Apple's port of gcc explicitly chooses incorrect results occasionally for performance (an interesting specific case being ___divdc3).

5) It is in "final final final draft". Meanwhile, even for C++, Clang doesn't totally work yet. Until just a couple months ago, Clang's website claimed the following:

> However, the implementation of Clang C++ is still somewhat immature, with remaining bugs that may cause compiler crashes, erroneous errors and warnings, or miscompiled code.

AFAIK, this situation has not changed since then, and my attempts to use it recently have, in fact, been met with the compiler crashing out instead of generating any code at all.

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#50

Post by jrockway »

jsz0 wrote: post #38
jrockway wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You still can't install it on your or your friend's phones. What's the point of writing software you can't actually run?
Post reply on HN