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

Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

puri.sm

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 280 posts

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#141

Post by rictic »

zepto wrote: post #26

I have been a vocal supporter of Librem, and Pine64 because I see the adoption of free devices running free software as a necessary solution and the way to ultimately change the dynamics in the industry. They are literally doing the thing I think is the solution. On the other hand, I oppose the generic bashing of Apple and Epic’s antitrust campaign, because these have nothing to do with creating an alternative. Indee…

> Indeed if Epic wins, iOS will become even more entrenched.

Hm, care to expand on that? I don't see why that would be.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#142

Post by mullingitover »

heavyset_go wrote: post #140
mullingitover wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true at all - you can modify the source code from open source apps, build, and install on your own device without asking permission from Apple or paying a fee for a developer license. The only control Apple has is over app distribution.

Apple actively bans GPL software from the App Store because the GPL precludes distribution of GPL apps under the App Store's terms. Distribution under the App Store's terms is a GPL violation itself.

Can you provide some examples of apps Apple has removed? Because, counterexample, Telegram is licensed under GPL and is has not been actively banned from the app store.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#143

Post by ece »

zepto wrote: post #26

I have been a vocal supporter of Librem, and Pine64 because I see the adoption of free devices running free software as a necessary solution and the way to ultimately change the dynamics in the industry. They are literally doing the thing I think is the solution. On the other hand, I oppose the generic bashing of Apple and Epic’s antitrust campaign, because these have nothing to do with creating an alternative. Indee…

I disagree, it's perfectly fine for a developer to say no, I can't be in a closed ecosystem for these reasons like Purism stated. We need developers and users to choose open ecosystems.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#144

Post by heavyset_go »

mullingitover wrote: post #142
heavyset_go wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple actively bans GPL software from the App Store because the GPL precludes distribution of GPL apps under the App Store's terms. Distribution under the App Store's terms is a GPL violation itself.

Can you provide some examples of apps Apple has removed? Because, counterexample, Telegram is licensed under GPL and is has not been actively banned from the app store.

VLC was removed from the App Store by Apple[1], and had to be re-released under a dual license that allowed App Store distribution. GNU Go faced the same licensing issue[2]. This is a topic that was discussed on HN several years ago[3][4].

> Because, counterexample, Telegram is licensed under GPL and is has not been actively banned from the app store.

As long as Telegram owns the IP for the app, or has contributors sign a CLA that allows for relicensing, nothing is stopping them from distributing the app under the GPL and distributing it under an App Store friendly license.

Taking GPL code that you do not own the IP of, or that you do not have a license to distribute under your own terms, and distributing it under the App Store terms is a violation of the GPL.

[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/no-gpl-apps-for-apples-app-sto...

[2] https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2083723

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1379662

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#145

Post by cjohansson »

jsperson wrote: post #25
pojntfx wrote: post #5

It is still absolutely fascinating to me how we have arrived at a point where in order to use one's own device properly, one has to ask a US company nicely or be unable to do so - and people pay money for it. On macOS, it is now impossible to distribute a VPN or a virtualization software without permission from Apple. 30% of the world's population would, if their government cut a deal with Apple, be unable to install…

On the other hand, I spend 0% of my time managing iOS devices for my parents and am constantly bombarded with issues from my in-laws with Android phones. I agree that some of Apple's behavior is monopolistic and has some unfortunate, possibly unforeseen consequences, but the end result is pretty nice for the consumers who are willing to accept the compromise.

I spend a lot of time fixing iOS devices to relatives and friends. I think what you are referring to is just a myth created by the PR department at Apple

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#146

Post by wvenable »

ncw96 wrote: post #120
akmarinov wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sucks, they don't require it of Netflix, Spotify, Amazon, Disney, etc What Librem are doing is the right thing though - go to the press, raise a big stink and Apple will back off. It's been proven to work time and time again.

Apple has a well known exception to the rule requiring an option to subscribe inside the app for “reader” apps, a vaguely defined which includes Netflix, Spotify, Dropbox, and seemingly whatever else is convenient to Apple. Apple did not lift this requirement for the Hey email app during the controversy over that last year. Instead, they reached a compromise where Hey would offer a free trial of their service inside…

I'd like to see them try to enforce that rule with banking apps...

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#147

Post by wvenable »

mullingitover wrote: post #139
kmeisthax wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but if you take the software from the App Store, you are bound by App Store TOS. The TOS supercedes any Free Software rights you may have had from the license; and prohibits you from redistributing the software, which trips GPL's no-further-restrictions clause. Of course, you can take both sets of terms for the App Store and a self-compiled version, and you can then distribute modifications to the source code of…

> In practice, this means you cannot actually put GPL applications on iOS unless you get a CLA from every developer on the project. Again, simply not true. If you obtain the source code, build, and run your own iOS apps on your own device you have no issues with GPL compliance. Honestly I'm disappointed that more open source projects don't go this route. Blender could easily provide an xcode project that anyone can b…

As long as you have a valid developer certificate to sign the app and you have a development provisioning profile and your device is registered as a test device. For that you need to be registered as an iPhone Developer Program member ($99). And you have to constantly renew your profile.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#148

Post by 13415 »

vultour wrote: post #43

Off topic but this website has the most obnoxious lower case letter 't' I have ever seen. I had to stop reading after the first two paragraphs and try to figure out what was wrong because the text felt off.

I was more annoyed by the '3', which made the 30% look like a distorted 80%.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#149

Post by ogre_codes »

bogwog wrote: post #29
protomyth wrote: post #6

Apple is requiring us to add the ability to sign up and pay for Librem One subscriptions within the Librem Tunnel app before they will allow updated versions into the App Store. This the basically the summation of it all. Doesn't Apple require the ability to have anonymous logins too when creating accounts on iDevices?

You're also leaving out that the VPN is just one part of the larger "Librem One" subscription package. It's something customers discover through Librem's marketing, buy from Librem on Librem's website not using Apple's payment/account systems, and not exclusive to Apple platforms in any way. Yet Apple is forcing them to give up 30% of their revenue, because they can.

> Yet Apple is forcing them to give up 30% of their revenue, because they can.

This is a bit disingenuous. Apple isn’t forcing them to give up 30% of their revenue, they are requiring they give users the option to sign up through the App Store.

If most of their customers come from outside the App Store, this won’t make much difference to them.

If they make less the $1m through the App Store, it will only be 15%.

The second is a bit of a niggle, but if most of their promotion and value comes from outside the App Store, this wouldn’t be a big problem.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#150

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

kop316 wrote: post #41
mullingitover wrote: post #36

I'm not clear on why Librem would need to add an in-app purchase option under app store guidelines, and their article doesn't really explain it either. App store guidelines on this topic are: > 3.1.3(f) Free Stand-alone Apps: Free apps acting as a stand-alone companion to a paid web based tool (eg. VOIP, Cloud Storage, Email Services, Web Hosting) do not need to use in-app purchase, provided there is no purchasing in…

This seems to be where they explain it: "Even though Librem Tunnel is just part of the overall Librem One offering, because it’s part of a subscription service, Apple is requiring us to add the ability to sign up and pay for Librem One subscriptions within the Librem Tunnel app before they will allow updated versions into the App Store." However, what you show seems to contradict that? EDIT: If I were to guess, the f…

my company had the exact same problem. This is no automated process. We had to enable EITHER in-app free trials OR in-app purchases (or both). And you cant use stripe, paypal, amazon payments, google pay, or alipay in-app.... it MUST be apple pay.
Post reply on HN