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

71–80 of 94 posts

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#71

Post by brisance »

saurik wrote: post #49
foljs wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

  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).
In order to keep their user-base on Actionscript/Flash, Adobe was banking on LLVM to get Flash to work on iOS devices before they were legally restricted from doing so. With the lifting of the ban, Adobe can now deploy Flash-based code on iOS devices[1]. LLVM is also used in many other commercial software project, so your argument doesn't hold.

[1] http://www.adobe.com/devnet/logged_in/abansod_iphone.html

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#72

Post by rbanffy »

patrickaljord wrote: post #12
X-Istence wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This keeps being brought up, the whole apple not contributing back to FreeBSD, but I would urge you to please look through FreeBSD's CVS history to find all of the places that Apple HAS indeed contributed back (I've made several comments with links to such sources on HN before). Apple also has an entire website dedicated to the various pieces of source code for their OS, and other tools, and are actively developing c…

WebKit doesn't count because they were forced to contribute back as KHTML was LGPL. I know they have rewritten big parts of it under the BSD license, but given that Google (and others) commits constitutes more than 50% of the webkit contributions today, it wouldn't make sense for Apple to stop contributing their changes.

> WebKit doesn't count because they were forced to contribute back as KHTML was LGPL

Curiously, I don't remember them being "forced" to use KHTML as their starting point...

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#73

Post by rbanffy »

Stormbringer wrote: post #58
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.

You know, I don't think that Apple deliberately sat down and decided to create an anti-FSF platform. I think they sat down and tried to create a platform that would be commercially viable, but wouldn't descend into anarchy, e.g. would stay 'family friendly'. In order to ensure that, they need to maintain control. But hey, a bunch of control freaks picked a system that would maximise their control... news at 11 everyo…

> Funnily enough, the GPL is also a walled garden environment

That's quite a stretched definition of walled garden. GPL is easy: We believe consumers have rights. If you want to use software we write as parts of yours, we forbid you to disrespect those rights. Simple as that. Yes - their rights are more important than yours. It's not about the kids playing in the sandpit. It has always been about the kids that use - and have to rely on - the toys the kids in the sandpit make.

You really don't get it, do you?

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#74

Post by prodigal_erik »

Stormbringer wrote: post #59
rbanffy wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to make it completely free (as in, "I don't care what you do with it" free), use BSD Sadly, it's also free as "please, BigNastyCorp, feel free to take away any freedoms from your users who depend on my work". While BSD may be "more free" according to some, it's the freedoms of the users we are (or should be) protecting. For those, *GPL is the license of choice.

The GPL does not give a rat's patootie about users. The GPL is designed to ensure the maximum freedoms of developers . That it simultaneously destroys any hope that those same developers can enrich themselves by selling the software is supremely ironic, as it forces them to live as wage slaves under the whims of their corporate overlords. Thus they gain one sort of liberty but at the expense of giving up other econom…

The GPL proclaims its user-centric purpose right up front, and everything in it is about what developers must provide to users and permit them to do. Stallman is on record about freedom being much more important to him than making us or himself rich. I don't know why you'd bother to accuse them of ironically failing to achieve a goal they're clearly indifferent about.

Every time society attaches a price tag to an unlimited resource like copies of software, we make ourselves poorer overall by minimizing our benefit from wealth that can't be used up or worn out. In my ideal world, software is developed as work for hire, because it's actually skilled labor that's scarce and needs to be rationed out by the economy. Doctors don't sell medicine, plumbers don't sell pipe, why should developers sell copies of binaries rather than hours of work?

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#75

Post by patrickaljord »

rbanffy wrote: post #72
patrickaljord wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WebKit doesn't count because they were forced to contribute back as KHTML was LGPL. I know they have rewritten big parts of it under the BSD license, but given that Google (and others) commits constitutes more than 50% of the webkit contributions today, it wouldn't make sense for Apple to stop contributing their changes.

> WebKit doesn't count because they were forced to contribute back as KHTML was LGPL Curiously, I don't remember them being "forced" to use KHTML as their starting point...

I never said they were forced to use khtml, I said because they chose khtml they were forced to contribute back because it's under the LGPL.

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#76

Post by X-Istence »

patrickaljord wrote: post #12
X-Istence wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This keeps being brought up, the whole apple not contributing back to FreeBSD, but I would urge you to please look through FreeBSD's CVS history to find all of the places that Apple HAS indeed contributed back (I've made several comments with links to such sources on HN before). Apple also has an entire website dedicated to the various pieces of source code for their OS, and other tools, and are actively developing c…

WebKit doesn't count because they were forced to contribute back as KHTML was LGPL. I know they have rewritten big parts of it under the BSD license, but given that Google (and others) commits constitutes more than 50% of the webkit contributions today, it wouldn't make sense for Apple to stop contributing their changes.

While Google at the moment may be committing 50% of the contributions and patches, I would like to point out that Apple has its internal branch of WebKit that they are working on, and when the time comes for a public release there is a ramp up in the WebKit commits on Apple's behalf. This has been documented before.

See here for a nice chart where you can see those jumps in commits: http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/06/google-apple-webkit/

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#77

Post by X-Istence »

rbanffy wrote: post #55
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…

> If you want to make it completely free (as in, "I don't care what you do with it" free), use BSD Sadly, it's also free as "please, BigNastyCorp, feel free to take away any freedoms from your users who depend on my work". While BSD may be "more free" according to some, it's the freedoms of the users we are (or should be) protecting. For those, *GPL is the license of choice.

Actually, let me fix that for you:

"please GPL, feel free to take my source code, slap the GPL on it and nanana at me when new changes are made that I now can't incorporate"

Look at the whole OpenBSD wireless drivers fiasco that happened. Really us BSD guys have not much to worry about when it comes to corporations (I've had my BSD licensed source code used by big business, and they have donated money to my little dinky project because it was useful for them), we have to worry our source code is not taken by the GPL crowd as they slap the GPL on any changes and suddenly any improvements made I am not able to use eventhough it is still technically Open Source.

From personal experience, BSD becomes GPL hurts WAY more than some corporation taking the code and using it and letting me know either by email or by donating money to my small project.

(The code for the BSD project is no longer online after I found some flaws in it that I didn't want to fix, so please don't ask)

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#78

Post by X-Istence »

wzdd wrote: post #60
protomyth wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a project is under the BSD and you contribute code under the BSD, you gave rights via the license. If you change your mind the you poison the BSD licensed project. Why contribute?

This is a good question to ask of a rational, logical person. However, people change their minds all the time, so I'm interested in the legalities: could a contributor to a BSD project get applications taken down? Assume the contributor is malicious, insane, or just mercurial.

Nope. You have given away the right to make decisions on who can use the code when you assigned that license to it.

Could you take said code, remove the license and make it available commercially? Sure, it is your code, but any older or previous copies are still available under the BSD license.

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#79

Post by Stormbringer »

rbanffy wrote: post #68
Stormbringer wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPL does not give a rat's patootie about users. The GPL is designed to ensure the maximum freedoms of developers . That it simultaneously destroys any hope that those same developers can enrich themselves by selling the software is supremely ironic, as it forces them to live as wage slaves under the whims of their corporate overlords. Thus they gain one sort of liberty but at the expense of giving up other econom…

> The GPL does not give a rat's patootie about users. Care to explain your reasoning? > The GPL is designed to ensure the maximum freedoms of developers. That's why it explicitly prohibits you from using GPL'ed code under proprietary licenses. No. If you intend to engage in an intelligent debate, you should, at least, educate yourself to a point you actually can. > That it simultaneously destroys any hope that those…

>> The GPL does not give a rat's patootie about users. >Care to explain your reasoning? >> The GPL is designed to ensure the maximum freedoms of developers.

My reasoning is that the GPL is about what you can do with the code the program is based on. USERS don't do stuff with code. Programmers do stuff with code. A user is not going to take an annoying bug in your app and fix it, but (given guaranteed access to the source) a developer might.

> You can always double-license it, MySQL-style.

cough Indeed. uncough

Re: No GPL Apps for Apple's App Store

#80

Post by Stormbringer »

rbanffy wrote: post #73
Stormbringer wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, I don't think that Apple deliberately sat down and decided to create an anti-FSF platform. I think they sat down and tried to create a platform that would be commercially viable, but wouldn't descend into anarchy, e.g. would stay 'family friendly'. In order to ensure that, they need to maintain control. But hey, a bunch of control freaks picked a system that would maximise their control... news at 11 everyo…

> Funnily enough, the GPL is also a walled garden environment That's quite a stretched definition of walled garden. GPL is easy: We believe consumers have rights. If you want to use software we write as parts of yours, we forbid you to disrespect those rights. Simple as that. Yes - their rights are more important than yours. It's not about the kids playing in the sandpit. It has always been about the kids that use -…

Whereas your definition is enormously abstract.

I do get it. Just because I don't share your sad devotion to that ancient religion doesn't mean I don't understand it.

I think you need to go do some research. There was a good bio on RMS that came out ~10 years ago, you should go read it.

Post reply on HN