Advertisement
GStreamer Conference 2013, 22-23 Oct, Edinburgh
GStreamer, Embedded Linux, Android, VoD, Smooth Streaming, DRM, RTSP, HEVC, PulseAudio, OpenGL. Register now to attend.
Weekly Edition
Return to the Front page
| |||||||||||||
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPLApple's App Store for iPhone, iPod, and iPad devices has no shortage of critics, from the delays in application approval to the seemingly arbitrary removal of previously-approved applications. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) recently took on yet another problem with the distribution channel when it contacted Apple to pursue a GPL compliance problem with a GNU-copyrighted game. Apple evidently found it easier to remove the game in question than to alter its App Store policies, but the debate has sparked a discussion about free software on Apple's otherwise closed devices. The trouble began with a GNU Go for the iPhone game, submitted to the App Store by Robota Softwarehouse. GNU Go for the iPhone is a port of the original GNU Go — a program for playing the game of Go including an AI opponent — which is an official part of the GNU project. At some unspecified date, the FSF contacted both Robota and Apple to ask them to come into compliance with GNU Go's license, the GPLv2. Robota was violating the license by not providing access to the source code of the game, and Apple was in violation for several reasons, according to FSF License Compliance Engineer Brett Smith. Fearing that, in response, Apple would simply remove the GNU Go game from the store without explanation, the FSF posted a blog entry on May 25 describing its case. That fear was evidently well-founded, as Apple pulled GNU Go for the iPhone on May 26. Smith followed up the original post with a more detailed explanation on May 27. In it, he says that the particular license violation that FSF brought up with Apple was section 6 of the GPLv2, which states that a redistributor of the licensed program may not impose further restrictions on the recipients to copy, distribute, or modify the program. Apple's App Store terms of service do impose several restrictions, such as limiting usage of the program to five devices approved by Apple. ReactionDavid "Lefty" Schlesinger criticized the FSF's action in a string of posts on his personal blog, starting by challenging whether FSF would engage in similar compliance actions against other mobile application marketplaces, such as Android's or Windows Mobile's. He followed that up with a second post rejecting the idea that Apple would be considered bound by the terms of the GPL, comparing the App Store to general "file download" sites such as FileHippo that host binary packages of free software but do not also host source code. Finally, he asserted in a third post that Apple could not be held to the terms of the GPL at all, because it would qualify for protection under the "safe harbor" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Debate over the entire chain of events can be found on every outlet from Slashdot to Identi.ca, including some lengthy exchanges in the comments on Schlesinger's blog posts. Examining Schlesinger's arguments, it is impossible to predict whether FSF would (or has) pursued GPL compliance action against other application markets, both because the FSF only acts on GPL violations for which it owns the copyright to infringing code, and because most compliance actions take place in private. Smith stated that the FSF only publicized the GNU Go case to forestall speculation that might result if Apple silently pulled the application as the FSF predicted it would. On the second post, it seems quite clear that the GPL does apply to Apple as well as to FileHippo or any other site that hosts GPL-licensed code. Apple accepts the code from the developer, then redistributes it in the App Store; that triggers the license. On the other hand, section 3(c) states that noncommercial distribution by those who received the program as an executable can comply with the source code requirement simply by providing the upstream distributor's source code offer. Whether a zero-cost game in the App Store qualifies as "noncommercial" is open to interpretation. A download-only site like FileHippo should be in compliance provided that its binaries are unaltered; if the upstream source of the binary did not include a compliant source code offer, it would be the upstream source that is non-compliant. But there is no similar exception in section 6 that passes the buck upstream. Apple's App Store terms-of-service definitely impose restrictions on the use of GNU Go for the iPhone, and the wording of section 6 is simple: "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." Schlesinger and other commenters seem taken aback by the scope of the definition of "distributor," saying it would be ludicrous to hold Best Buy or other brick-and-mortar stores to the GPL if they sell boxed copies of free software. It is certainly an inclusive definition, but it is not as bad as the hypothetical Best Buy scenario implies; a big-box retail store could reasonably claim ignorance to the contents of a prepackaged product, which Apple with its per-app-review process cannot, but, in any case, a retail store is not able to impose additional restrictions as described under section 6. As ChillingEffects.org explains in detail, the "safe harbor" provision of the DMCA applies only to service providers, defined as "an entity offering transmission, routing, or providing connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received" or "a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities thereof," further limited to systems that provide "conduit communications", "system caching", "storage systems", or "information location tools". Considering those definitions, Apple's App Store simply does not appear to qualify for protection. But even if it did, Smith said, that only limits Apple's liability, it does not excuse them from compliance with the GPL. Apple "would still have to make the same choice about whether to come into compliance with the GPL, or cease distribution altogether." Spreading the wordThe big unanswered question is whether or not the FSF's action does more harm than good in the effort to spread free software. Schlesinger says repeatedly in the comment threads (as do others on other sites) that it does more harm, preventing users of the iPhone from using free software and being exposed to free software ideals. The FSF, for its part, suggests that there is little exposure to free software ideals when the terms-of-service restrict the software to begin with. In the end, it is probably a judgment call; certainly technical restrictions of the iPhone platform would prevent users from exercising freedom to modify and redistribute GNU Go for the iPhone even if they had the source code in hand. Would they nevertheless learn to appreciate software freedom more? The other charge made against the FSF in this case is that it singled out Apple as a public example solely for the sake of publicity. That is speculative, of course. FSF has targeted Apple for criticism before, as it has Microsoft, but as Smith explained in the first blog entry, it talked to Apple in private first — as it has with Robota, who still does not seem to have posted the source code to the problematic game. Even if one does not take FSF at its word (that the public discussion of the case was meant to preempt uninformed speculation), it has had one positive effect: it has gotten the community talking about free software licensing and mobile application distribution, a subject that will only grow in importance in the coming years. (Log in to post comments)
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 3:44 UTC (Thu) by lfelipe (subscriber, #50478) [Link]
Since I was recently appointed as maintainer for GNU Shogi, this actually interests me quite a bit. One of the ideas far down on my TODO list was to make a version of it for the iPhone and possibly other mobile phones.
One thing I find weird is this comment from the post: "a big-box retail store could reasonably claim ignorance to the contents of a prepackaged product, which Apple with its per-app-review process cannot". AFAIK, the per-app-review process does not include analysis of the source code, which I believe is not even submitted to Apple. So they can't actually check whether the app infringes on GPL software or anything of the sort. Their review is mostly targeted at functionality/usability stuff, and is made on top of the application binary itself. So putting the responsability on them as Distributors would seem mostly mistaken. I do think they are more prone to be considered a store, exactly like Best Buy in the example.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 4:28 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
apple claims to be checking lots of stuff with their review, they claim it's because they want only 'good stuff' in the store (and their policy of pulling any app that they want to adds to this)
as such it seems perfectly reasonable to say that if they are policing the store to make sure that all 'bad stuff' is kept out, they are saying that what they let in must be 'good stuff'
If they don't want to be in this position (and be able to say "don't blame us, we only run the system and sell the phones") then they need to not work as hard 'approving' apps (which in practice mostly seems to be arbitrary rejection of apps that annoy someone at apple)
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 4:32 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
also remember that apple claims the right to reject an app based on what language it's originally written in. (this is core in their fight against adobe)
if they can determine what language an app was written in by the resulting binary, they can do GPL enforcement.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 15:21 UTC (Thu) by ctwise (subscriber, #10952) [Link]
Developers submit binaries to Apple for review and posting. Apple uses binary analysis tools to ensure that apps aren't using private frameworks. They probably also look for signatures that indicate the use of Flash frameworks or other "banned" technologies.
When a developer submits an app to Apple, they state they have the rights to distribute the application. Apple could care less what the licensing is for the source code.
The primary reasons for Apple to reject an application (according to Steve Jobs) are:
1. Doesn't function or do what it says it does
The first reason is also why many applications get rejected for what people would assume are source-code violations. For example, Apple won't allow interpreters in apps. They aren't scanning through source code, they're looking at developer-provided descriptions. If a developer says you download scripts to their app, Apple will reject it on the assumption you're interpreting the scripts.
I have no opinion on whether Apple can be considered a distributor or not. But you need to base your decision on the facts.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 11, 2010 0:09 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Apple [couldn't] care less what the licensing is for the source code.
Well, we're not talking about licensing of the source code. We're talking about licensing to copy the application (object code) file. No ordinary member of the public is licensed to distribute the GNU Go iphone application in the app store because the FSF hasn't given it's permission to copy stuff compiled from FSF's source code, except to those who meet conditions that you can't meet in the app store. But your point is still valid: if Apple isn't legally the one doing the copying, Apple has little reason to care whether Apple is licensed to copy. The Best Buy comparison was bizarre. There's nothing in common between making hundreds of copies of something and passing those out, as happens with the app store, and passing on a copy that was made by the publisher, as happens when Best Buy sells a box.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 7:31 UTC (Thu) by ftc (subscriber, #2378) [Link]
I don't think Apple doing any "GPL enforcement" or "checking whether the application infringes on GPL software" is in any way relevant here.
What is relevant is that they should check the license of software they distribute through the app store, and make sure that they, themselves, comply with it.
If the license of the software they accept is under the GPL, Apple should realize they cannot distribute it in a way that requires the end user to comply with additional restrictions (such as the mentioned limitation of installation on five devices), and should either change their policies and do not impose any such restrictions, or, doing as they often do, and not accept the software into their store.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 12:54 UTC (Thu) by lfelipe (subscriber, #50478) [Link]
But that is just it, you can't really expect them to. The liability shouldn't be on them to do that (as is the case for Best Buy), but in the person that is submitting the application. What they should do (and I'm pretty sure they do it) is to ask the submitter to make sure he has the right to sell that app through their store, including distribution licensing issues. And in the case where they find out somethings wrong has been done, they take action (just like Amazon did, but poorly, on the 1984 book case for the Kindle).
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 22:46 UTC (Thu) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link] Apple doesn't "check the license" of anything submitted to the App Store. They rely on the developer's statement (made as part of the process of submission) that there are no legal reasons why the app cannot be distributed.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 22:44 UTC (Thu) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link]
This is correct: Apple does not review the source code for apps submitted to the iTunes App Store, nor do they require developers to submit sources. They probably should be treated like a Best Buy, but the "free software movement" doesn't make this distinction: the recent SFLC enforcement action against WalMart is a similar situation.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 12, 2010 19:44 UTC (Sat) by speaker2animals (guest, #59643) [Link] Analogies with big-box retail stores fail because big-box retail stores do not make the copies they distribute. If you were to distribute GNU Shogi through an app store or other online distributor, you would upload one copy to the store or distributor, and then whenever someone wanted a copy the store or distributor would make a copy and distribute that to the downloader. The app store or online distributor is making copies, which requires permission of the copyright holder, and then distributing those copies, which also requires permission of the copyright holder. Hence, they have to care about the license on that original upload from you. If, on the other hand, you were to burn 10000 CD-ROMs with copies of GNU Shogi, put them in nice boxes, and sell them to a big-box retail store which in turn sells them to customers, the big-box retail store would not be making copies. They *would* be distributing copies, but those would be copies they bought from you and are reselling. That falls under a thing called the "First Sale Doctrine". In the US it is codified in the Copyright Act at 17 USC 109. The gist of that is: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. 106 (3) is the section of the Copyright Act that says that you need the copyright owner's permission to distribute copies, so first sale is an exception to the distribution right. In non-legalese, what first sale means is that once a particular copy is legally made, the owner fo that copy can sell it without requiring permission of the copyright owner. This is why, for example, you can sell used books without having to get permission from the author or publisher. First sale would apply to boxes of GNU Shogi you sell to Best Buy. They do not need permission to resell, and so it would not matter if they imposed any GPL-incompatibile terms on their customers. You can see first sale in action with regard to free software by looking at things like consumer routers, TVs, and DVRs that include GPL firmware. If you buy a Linksys router that uses Linux from Best Buy, Best Buy has no obligation to provide you with source code. The obligation to provide code falls entirely on Linksys. "Wait!" I hear people saying, "wasn't Best Buy named in one of the recent Busybox lawsuits for not providing source?" That's right, they were, but that was for hardware that Best Buy was manufacturing. They were making copies and then disributing those copies. First sale does not cover them there because they are making copies, not just passing on copies they receive from an upstream manufacturer.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jul 22, 2010 13:14 UTC (Thu) by smowton (guest, #57076) [Link]
In that case, a really cheap hack to get around the whole mess would be to have Apple's store capable of requesting the download from the original publisher's website, rather than storing the file themselves and copying as needed. That way memcpy(3) is invoked on a machine owned by the publisher and, in the required sense, the copy is being made by somebody not the distributor. In a similar sense, Best Buy could order boxed copies of Ubuntu on demand, as customers ask for them, and if Ubuntu were kind enough to set up a desk in the parking lot, that "just-in-time" copy would take time comparable to a download request.
Overall however this seems to show a shortcoming of the legal framework around this stuff; it wouldn't be unreasonable for it to be possible for the author of some program to accept responsibility for copies made by Apple.
A separate problem seems to be the issue of restriction. This is a little thornier. I wonder would it be enough for the program, when downloaded (direct from the publisher's servers, using the App Store as nothing but a directory), for the program to show a notice saying "this is free software; source code is at X along with instructions for running it on this and other platforms"? Figuratively this would leave the user empowered to do anything they could with ordinary free software; the fact that the presently running copy can't be modified in situ ceases to restrict their actions in any meaningful way.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jul 22, 2010 14:09 UTC (Thu) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] In that case, a really cheap hack to get around the whole mess would be to have Apple's store capable of requesting the download from the original publisher's website, rather than storing the file themselves and copying as needed. This would be nice in theory, but in practice the iPhone App Store is all about Apple controlling what software is available on the device. Therefore it is highly unlikely that they will allow iPhone users to download stuff from servers that Apple doesn't own – otherwise there would be no need to have the App Store in the first place, except as a convenience for naive users. Figuratively this would leave the user empowered to do anything they could with ordinary free software; the fact that the presently running copy can't be modified in situ ceases to restrict their actions in any meaningful way. One of the main ideas behind free software is for people to be able to change the software that they're actually running. Being able to look at the source code is nice but iPhone users can have that now without Apple's cooperation (there is nothing that keeps the authors of GPL software from adding a link to the source code to, say, the »About« dialog or moral equivalent thereof), and not being able to actually run a tweaked version of the program sort of defies the purpose of free software. Of course, fixing this would mean opening the iPhone to any old code from anybody, which as we know is not what the iPhone is traditionally about, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jul 23, 2010 11:01 UTC (Fri) by smowton (guest, #57076) [Link]
Ah hang on, I was under the impression that users could run arbitrary crap on their local phone, just not distribute it. It turns out this is not so unless you jailbreak it and thus void your warranty or pay for a developer's license to permit "testing".
The download thing can still be got around though -- there's nothing to stop Apple retrieving the download by way of the publisher but checksumming the download as it goes through (or modifying the app store client to check that the checksum matches one handed down by the Store servers) in order to ensure that the right thing is being distributed.
Now then what about what seems to be the core problem: is it ever possible to honour free licenses on a locked-down platform? What if Apple offered an Android-style "authorised" jailbreak, in which the phone permits you to download software but breaks your warranty for doing so? Is Apple imposing illegal conditions in that way? If so, doesn't the Android similarly prevent you from replacing core system components without such a jailbreak and so break the license attached to the kernel?
Unfortunately I'd guess that Apple don't want the support headache from people who followed a HOWTO online and have screwed up their phone, their policy generally being to save people from their own ineptitude...
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 8:17 UTC (Thu) by xav (guest, #18536) [Link]
I'm not sure Mr Schlesinger's blog deserves making LWN's very first headline.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 13:01 UTC (Thu) by wingo (guest, #26929) [Link]
Indeed. There were many ways to write this article; choosing Lefty's blog as a unifying theme is disappointing.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 13:42 UTC (Thu) by DOT (subscriber, #58786) [Link]
Ditto. Lefty is not exactly a neutral party, as an outspoken critic of the Free Software Foundation. This time, he leaves legal reality behind to push his agenda.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 19:17 UTC (Thu) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link]
I don't think he is leaving legal reality behind. Well, maybe he is, because I think there are far easier examples to show that FSF might not be correct here (IANAL).
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 11, 2010 14:00 UTC (Fri) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link]
Perhaps you can provide some specific details on how I've "left legal reality behind". Armijn doesn't seem to agree with you on this...
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 22:50 UTC (Thu) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link]
I'm wondering whether this is the same "Xav" who made a public issue of the email client I happened to be using to post to the foundation-list a week or so ago. You'd seem to show a similar inclination to deal with minutiae rather that issues.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 8:38 UTC (Thu) by zzxtty (subscriber, #45175) [Link]
"as the hypothetical Best Buy scenario implies; a big-box retail store could reasonably claim ignorance to the contents of a prepackaged product"
Large stores manage just about everything when it comes to products and placement within their stores, I suspect they have many safeguards in place to make sure they are not illegally distributing products. Even if they did I imagine their reaction would be the same as apple's if they found themselves in a similar situation.
Either Apple is at fault for not checking the licence of the software they were re-distributing, or the Robota didn't provide the appropriate licence.
As far as reaching out to Apple users, why? They have little or no interest in technology, they want an appliance, not software. I doubt they would understand, or even care, about the difference between free and free. Apple appliances are designed to be closed, they are designed to serve content provides, not their owners. We should not help promote these products by providing software for them.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 10:30 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
Why would the FSF go after Best Buy?
http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/12/best-buy-law...
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 15:56 UTC (Thu) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]
Exactly! Best Buy uses a better-targeted alternative not owned by the FSF for all its GPL software needs. The idea that Best Buy would dedicate the precious space on its devices without consoles to usage strings is, frankly, ridiculous, since they can carelessly violate the license on BusyBox instead.
not just in "stores" Posted Jun 10, 2010 11:00 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
We see the same thing from various hapless "alt OS" communities (e.g. Amiga, BeOS) where most software is binary only and Free Software isn't generally expected. Someone finds a dozen GPL'd SDL games, they compile the source, tweak a few lines here and there to workaround problems, and then they just upload the binaries and say "Look at all these free games".
The idea that they're responsible for providing source code is completely alien to them and they're often very hostile to anyone who points this out. They see what they've done as taking a free resource (the source code) and making something useful from it, for which they should be praised. Despite the fact that they themselves relied upon source code to be able to do this, they often characterise it as "useless" or "confusing" in explaining why they should not have to distribute it.
When it comes to their changes (if any) again they tend to be hostile to providing these. Apparently my source code is worthless, but their ten lines of changes are precious and they don't see why they must share.
And the overall effect is exactly what the FSF would predict: Such platforms often find that software cannot be maintained because someone threw away the only working version of the source code. New users can't learn how to fix or improve software because they're presented only with "ready to go" binaries and no source code. This is great if you want (as it seems some of these communities do) to create a cult atmosphere where software developers are like gods, but it doesn't do much for your chances of long term success.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 11:08 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
"certainly technical restrictions of the iPhone platform would prevent users from exercising freedom to modify and redistribute GNU Go for the iPhone even if they had the source code in hand. Would they nevertheless learn to appreciate software freedom more?"
As far as I understand it, all iPhone users may install arbitrary software if they: pay an annual tax to Apple to be a "developer" and install suitable software (which appears to be $0 for OS X) or get someone else to do so on their behalf.
Having done this you can use GPL'd software on your iPhone, you can modify it and install the modified versions, and you can redistribute the source code to other people in a similar situation.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 18:55 UTC (Thu) by johnsu01 (subscriber, #34757) [Link]
Unfortunately, no -- you are referring to the ad hoc distribution program, but this is intended exclusively for testing future App Store applications, and so has a number of limits. Among many other things, you have to give Apple the device ID for each device that your developer certificate-signed software will be installed on, and you are not allowed to give redistribution rights.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 17, 2010 20:45 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
"you are not allowed to give redistribution rights"
redistribution rights for what?
I don't see how any of this prevents an arbitrarily large group of users (having paid Apple's "developer" tax) from all working on a GPL'd program and simply compiling it locally. They all pay the tax, they all give just their own device ID to Apple, and then they compile and install new versions from source as they please, like a mid-1990s Linux system.
If the idea is that Apple's rules forbid you from giving someone else the rights to any software you developed to run on an iPhone then they have a big problem - that's a huge business for lots of their developers (big company hires agile iPhone dev shop to make an app, the big company keeps the rights), I'd guess probably the majority, so they're threatening to kill their golden goose if they enforce such a rule.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 11:10 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
I don't understand this:
>Schlesinger and other commenters seem taken aback by the scope of the definition of "distributor," saying it would be ludicrous to hold Best Buy or other brick-and-mortar stores to the GPL if they sell boxed copies of free software
It seems rather that it would be ludicrous *not* to. Or are we saying that if you're a large corporation then copyright doesn't apply? If a shop started selling GPL software with additional restrictions imposed on the buyer, I would *absolutely* expect the copyright owner to take them to task on it.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 14:20 UTC (Thu) by kirkengaard (subscriber, #15022) [Link]
Bingo. Likewise if Best Buy started selling proprietary software in violation of its license.
You've hit exactly the right point: nobody is exempt from copyright. This is why all of these arguments about the GPL being unenforceable seem idiotic to me. You comply with the license, which in most cases means you comply with the relevant sections of USC -- or whatever alternate license has been approved by the rights holder. Only the holder has a right to the software they create; rights are reserved by default. A selectively permissive copyright license is functionally no different, even though it makes other legal allowances and restrictions than the defaults. Nobody has a right to the code in any form otherwise, and I sincerely doubt any GPL enforcement case falls under a situation where a "resolution of necessity" would have been reasonable to justify appropriation and license violation. There's always an option: comply with our license for our software, comply with someone else's for their software, or write and license your own software.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 11, 2010 0:25 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] You're missing something: You don't need a copyright license to give someone a copy; you need the license to make a copy. Best Buy is passing on copies that were made by the copyright owner, so doesn't need any license from the copyright owner. The copyright owner has no power to control Best Buy's sales. With the app store, somebody's making copies. There seems to be some disagreement over who is doing that, but whoever it is needs a license from the FSF to do it. And ignorance is no excuse. It gets a little fuzzy in the novel area of aiding and abetting infringement, which is why Apple or Best Buy would pull an illegally copied product even though they aren't violating any copyright: Their participation could be seen as encouraging the real copyright violator to violate.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL - a matter of principle Posted Jun 10, 2010 13:10 UTC (Thu) by tjasper (subscriber, #4310) [Link] "The big unanswered question is whether or not the FSF's action does more harm than good in the effort to spread free software. " Judgement call or not, I'm glad the FSF has made a stand on this principle. Like trademarks, a principles values are significantly diluted if they're not respected and protected. The values of freedom came through the GPL because RMS believes and stands up for those principles. Trevor
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL - a matter of principle Posted Jun 23, 2010 18:36 UTC (Wed) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
sure they should've responded. The question is: how. From what I've heard, Apple was willing to comply and work with them. Until they nailed them publicly to the wall of shame. Now Apple won't work with them for the next 10 years or something. How was that helpful?
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL - a matter of principle Posted Jun 23, 2010 19:08 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Heard from whom? Provide a reference.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL - a matter of principle Posted Jun 23, 2010 19:27 UTC (Wed) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
yes, yes, I probably shouldn't have said it as I can't do that. It was a credible source but that doesn't make it sound any better if I can't name him/her ;-)
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL - a matter of principle Posted Jun 23, 2010 19:27 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
One presumes the FSF tried. They're famous for trying the quiet diplomatic route for *years*. The only thing that can normally stop them is stonewalling or bad faith on the part of the other party.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL - a matter of principle Posted Jun 23, 2010 19:41 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
Apple was willing to work with them by banning all GPL software from the App store to comply with the license.
that's not the result that anyone wants, and the publicity was to keep Apple from silently doing that.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 15:03 UTC (Thu) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link]
I don't see how the restriction of sharing content from one iTunes account between five device is incompatible with the GPL, which FSF seems to be indicating. I have seen no compelling arguments from FSF other than "this is incompatible with the GPL".
Please note: I do think Apple was violating the GPL by distributing a binary copy of GNUgo. But the rest of the claims: I'm not convinced.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 15:52 UTC (Thu) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
Straight from the article:
"In it, he says that the particular license violation that FSF brought up with Apple was section 6 of the GPLv2, which states that a redistributor of the licensed program may not impose further restrictions on the recipients to copy, distribute, or modify the program. Apple's App Store terms of service do impose several restrictions, such as limiting usage of the program to five devices approved by Apple."
What is not clear about that (copy/distribute)?
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 16:14 UTC (Thu) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link]
And as I said the article does not convince me.
How can it be a GPL violation if a distributor does not want to distribute more than x binary copies of a program to you, even if they would provide the full code in compliance with the GPL?
If you have the code you can compile the program, sign up with iTunes and redistribute, so what's the big deal?
Restricting the number if copies is NOT a license violation. Quoted from the GPLv2:
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
So, someone please tell me, why are the Apple App Store terms incompatible with GPLv2? I fail to see it.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 16:20 UTC (Thu) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]
> How can it be a GPL violation if a distributor does not want to
> distribute more than x binary copies of a program to you, even > if they would provide the full code in compliance with the GPL?
I guess I don't see where anybody is claiming that it is.
Once I get a binary from Apple, can I legally redistribute it more than five times and/or to devices that Apple doesn't like? That's the question, it seems to me. It's not how many times *Apple* is willing to distribute it, that's completely under their control, it's a question of what restrictions (legal, not technical) are placed on what the recipient can do.
At least that's how I see it ...
jake
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 19:12 UTC (Thu) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link]
That is a good question, but quite hypothetical. Binaries are signed and breaking the encryption opens a whole new can of worms.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 16:23 UTC (Thu) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
Restricting copies to 5 is limiting ... copying! On what grounds do you consider copying an activity that is "other than copying, distribution and modification"?
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 19:08 UTC (Thu) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link]
Let's look at the Apple license terms for a second. These sections come from the app store terms of usage that are copied on the FSF website, not the iTunes terms of usage. FSF says that the analysis applies identically to both, but they seem quite different to me. Anyway, the interesting bits from section 9:
(ii) You shall be able to store Products from up to five different Accounts on certain iPhone OS-based devices (including, but not limited to, iPad, iPod touch or iPhone), at a time.
(iii) You shall be able to store Products on five iTunes-authorized devices at any time.
The storing part could be seen as a limitation in copying, but I think it is not. What happens if you register a sixth device is that Apple will simply not distribute the program to that device since you already have five. Denying to distribute something to someone is, as far as I know, not a violation of the GPL license, since the license only comes into play once you distribute something. No distribution equals no license problem. Of course, Apple should make sure that the other five copies are distributed GPL compliant.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 19:14 UTC (Thu) by bcs (guest, #27943) [Link]
It's not, but that's not what the Terms of Service say. If it said "You can only download this program five times; after that, we're not going to let you download any more copies from us," that would be fine. But instead it says that you may only make five copies. And only on Apple-approved devices, no less. Thus it puts restrictions on the recipient's copying, and not merely Apple's, and that's what's not allowed under the GPL.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 19:24 UTC (Thu) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link]
The user is not copying anything. The user is using iTunes to let Apple distribute and install software onto an Apple approved device. Apple will only allow it on five Apple approved devices at the time. If you want more they will not distribute it to you. No distribution equals no licensing problem, it's as simple as that.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 19:44 UTC (Thu) by MortenSickel (subscriber, #3238) [Link]
Which then is as simple as a break of the GPL. How you can say that installing software onto a device is not copying, or that denying to install a piece of software is not do deny copying?
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 20:07 UTC (Thu) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link]
The terms as quoted up-thread use the word "obtain". The customer is limited to "obtaining" five instances of the program. Do you want to argue that "obtain" really means "copy" rather than "download"?
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 20:17 UTC (Thu) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
Could you be more specific, which thread? I cannot find the word "obtain" in any other post at the time of this post) than yours.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 20:37 UTC (Thu) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link]
How can not wanting to distribute to someone breach a distribution license?
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 20:12 UTC (Thu) by bcs (guest, #27943) [Link] It doesn't matter whether Apple distributes only one copy to the user, or over nine thousand: the GPL prohibits Apple from putting additional legal restrictions on any of them. The user has to have the freedom to make whatever additional copies of the software they want. But section 9(c) of the Terms of Service says: "You agree that your license of Products constitutes your acceptance of and agreement to use such Products solely in accordance with the Usage Rules...." (Emphasis added.) And one of those Usage Rules (9(b)(iii)) specifically imposes a limit on your copying: "You shall be able to store Products on five iTunes-authorized devices at any time." Regardless of how Apple's distribution is modeled, the copy or copies that the user receives are unquestionably restricted from further copying, in violation of the GPL.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 20:24 UTC (Thu) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link]
Thanks for pointing this out. The terms of usage say that to *USE* the products you have to agree the terms of the license. It does not say anything about copying, so it does not restrict your rights under GPLv2, since usage is outside the scope of the license. From GPLv2:
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 20:27 UTC (Thu) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link]
Argh, brain faster than fingers. What I meant to say is that to use it you have to agree with the terms of service, not the terms of the license.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 20:42 UTC (Thu) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
Correct, usage does not fall under the GPL2, it falls under standard copyright. Apple does not own the copyright so it cannot add terms of usage on software it does not own the copyright to (just as Best Buy may not dictate how you use your copy of MS Windows purchased there). Apple may demand that you add usage terms to your copyright if you desire to distribute your program via their service. But, random users attempting to distribute GPLed software via Apple's service cannot agree to this for other copyright holders.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 21:40 UTC (Thu) by johnsu01 (subscriber, #34757) [Link]
The ToS says you can store the software on 5 approved computers.
Copying the software yourself as permitted by the GPL would require storing it on a 6th (possibly unapproved) computer.
The ToS says you are not permitted to do anything outside of the listed rules.
Copying it to a 6th computer is outside the listed rules.
Which of the above do you take issue with?
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 16:54 UTC (Thu) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]
Section 6 of the GPL does say: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." Of course, this clause, literally interpreted, is unreasonably broad; I assume the FSF won't give me the passwords to their web servers so that I can overwrite their web site with copies of GPL software the FSF distributes, despite the fact that the GPL gives me the right to make and distribute these copies, and the FSF is preventing me from doing so in a particular way. And it's also obvious that, if a GPL-licensed binary has been copied into a computer's instruction cache, and this copy may be executed and is provided to the user in this fashion, but cannot be copied back out to memory or registers from there, nobody is violating the license.
Apple may be able to argue that they can restrict the use of the contents of an iTunes account as a whole, and that if you want to put the binary on something else, you have to get it there via a different path; the FSF would probably have a good case that Apple, in order to comply with the GPL, needs to provide the binary in some way that allows it to be redistributed in order for them to be allowed to also provide it in a way that's not exportable.
I'm not actually sure what the FSF would want Apple's initial response to be, considering that that didn't intend to distribute GPL software and their site doesn't have support for actions necessary to comply with it. I assume that FileHippo would similarly take down a file that was just an executable built from GPL sources, lacking a mechanism for accompanying it with anything and therefore unable to comply with the notification requirements.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 18:59 UTC (Thu) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link]
Binaries in the app store are signed and coupled to a profile in iTunes, making it very much (no, exactly) like Tivoization, which is frowned upon, but not explicitly forbidden in GPLv2, so FSF asking Apple to install unencrypted programs is highly unlikely to have a chance of success.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 20:01 UTC (Thu) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]
They don't have to install unencrypted programs, but they do have to make the unencrypted versions available to users. Of course, those versions won't be useful to anyone whose device won't run unsigned programs (or won't run A4 executables, etc.). Tivo also has to provide the somewhat-unhelpful binaries with their devices.
(It's a bit different from the Tivo case in that Apple would be fine with not permitting any GPLed code on these devices, whereas Tivo actually ships their devices with GPLed code on them. Apple can just not distribute any code through the App Store that is submitted by someone without the right to grant Apple the rights they need for their process.)
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 20:17 UTC (Thu) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link]
It does not say anywhere in the GPLv2 license that unencrypted binaries should be provided, just source (which is what matters, right?)
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 18:07 UTC (Thu) by spacehunt (subscriber, #1037) [Link]
> Schlesinger and other commenters seem taken aback by the scope of the definition of "distributor," saying it would be ludicrous to hold Best Buy or other brick-and-mortar stores to the GPL if they sell boxed copies of free software.
So Best Buy can sell pirated software? That's news to me.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 19:09 UTC (Thu) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link] So Best Buy can sell pirated software?What does pirated software have to do with anything? The question is whether a box of, say, "OpenSUSE box set" bought from a shelf at Best Buy confers any different set of rights to the purchaser than the same box bought via Amazon.com or directly from SUSE. It is clear that the purchaser can request source code from SUSE. It is surprising, if not "ludicrous" to find an obligation for Best Buy to keep and distribute version-matched source code for every program that might be found on a disk in the OpenSUSE box.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 19:23 UTC (Thu) by farnz (guest, #17727) [Link] Pirate software is software distributed other than in accordance with the licence - e.g. because I've made a copy without the copyright holder's permission. The GPL obligates distributors who don't modify the software in at least two distinct ways:
Best Buy clearly don't attempt to prevent you copying a SuSE box set you bought from them, so the second isn't relevant to them. As for the first part, one would assume that Best Buy have arrangement in place with their suppliers to ensure that they're indemnified against breach - either by having their suppliers provide source as part of the package, or by having their suppliers provide and honour the written offer. This isn't much different to other products with some degree of legal risk, such as washing machines; Best Buy will take on some of the risk themselves, but will push as much as they can back to their suppliers.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 20:00 UTC (Thu) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link] You are conflating Best Buy's obligations with respect to the box itself and their obligations with respect to the material contained in the box. Your logic would seem to imply that an offended reader could sue Best Buy for libel or plagiarism on the basis of a sentence in a book purchased from Best Buy's meager rack of paperbacks. The responsibility for the truth or copyright of the book contents rests with the author and publisher. Responsibility for license compliance of the software contained in the box likewise falls upon the packager/publisher.I don't see that purchase of a washing machine provides an obvious parallel case, except perhaps if there is a question of patent violation. But there again violation would be attributed to the manufacturer, not to the retail outlet.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 20:35 UTC (Thu) by farnz (guest, #17727) [Link] So you're claiming that if I produce "Farnz Windows 7", which is a box of my own design, with a copyright infringing copy of Windows 7 inside the box, and Best Buy stock it at $25, Best Buy can't get in trouble? That sounds astonishingly unlikely - if it were true, you would see pirate software in every Best Buy store, as they could just sell it, and say that it was the publisher's responsibility to not commit the offence. AIUI, the reason that it's not worth suing Best Buy over plagiarism or other copyright infringement in a book is nothing to do with whether Best Buy have any liability or not - it's simply that if Best Buy react to a notification of copyright infringement in a product by pulling it from the shelves, they can reasonably argue that they're innocent victims, too, (since they couldn't reasonably check the contents of all copyright affected items they sell before they do so) so damages are nil.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 21:34 UTC (Thu) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link] So you're claiming that if I produce "Farnz Windows 7", which is a box of my own design, with a copyright infringing copy of Windows 7 inside the box, and Best Buy stock it at $25, Best Buy can't get in trouble? I am not claiming that. They would have a problem because the box in question was already illegal/pirated/infringing/whatever as it came from the upstream supplier. It would have been an infringing copy whether one purchased it directly from Farnz Inc or from Best Buy. They are at fault for not determining that it was a legal product to begin with.But in the case of a SUSE box, so far as I understand your line of argument, the box and contents were fine and proper as delivered from SUSE but somehow became tainted by having a Best Buy sales-tag attached. Let us assume for the purpose of argument that Best Buy was diligent in checking that the box and contents were license-compliant from the start, with SUSE providing the source and/or a written offer inside that box. You seem to be arguing that nevertheless Best Buy itself has acquired additional obligations under the terms of a license agreed to by SUSE (the packager/distributer) and by the end user. How? No one is suggesting that Best Buy modified the contents, much less the original source, in any way. If I buy the box at Best Buy, and then re-sell it still-unopened to a friend, am I suddenly responsible for providing a copy of SUSE's source trees? I can imagine that there are people who hold such over-zealous interpretations of the virulence of the GPL, but I think Schlesinger is not the only one who would be "taken aback" by such an interpretation.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 22:38 UTC (Thu) by farnz (guest, #17727) [Link] Best Buy take this sort of risk all the time - how often do you think they verify for themselves that (for example) no toxic materials are present in illegal quantities in product they sell? If you pass on the box unopened as it came from SuSE, you're including SuSE's written promise and adding a guarantee that it will be honoured, or including source code. The risk from doing so is small, and I assume that Best Buy have done due diligence to ensure that they're safe (e.g. by getting their distributor to agree to take on the risks that come from supplying infringing product); until SuSE refuse to honour their promise, the product is legal, after all, and if source is included, it's legal even if SuSE disappear tomorrow. And the same applies to everything else under copyright that Best Buy stock; as a distributor, they are bound to obey copyright law. This greatly limits their liability, but doesn't remove it completely. The general rule here is that a retailer like Best Buy will normally only ever engage in so-called "innocent" infringement - they genuinely believed that they were in compliance with the licences (and will have a paper trail to show why they believed this), and thus, assuming they remove the problematic product from sale as soon as they discover it's infringing, their net liability is as close to 0 as makes no difference. In particular, you would be hard-put to require specific performance, as you could get the sources elsewhere, albeit at some effort, so you are not in a position that cannot be fixed by application of money. Best Buy should be in a position to demonstrate that they did not deliberately infringe (i.e. that they thought they were compliant), and that they took action to stop infringing as soon as they were notified. As a result, the chances are that, at worst, they'd be ordered to give you the necessary information to chase their upstream, but no money. The reason this is acceptable risk for Best Buy, but not for a device manufacturer is twofold:
Of these reasons, the first is the biggie - because Best Buy can show innocence, they have a good chance of not facing damages for non-compliance. Bringing it back round to the Apple situation - there's probably not a lot that can legally be done to Apple over this sorry mess, this time round, as they pulled the product as soon as they discovered it was infringing; this changes if someone can show that their approvals process gives them a chance to check for infringement. However, it does put everyone on notice that (in the FSF's opinion at least), it's impossible to distribute GPL code on the App Store without an exception clause added. Future developers who wish to use GPL code in App Store applications now know the intentions of at least one copyright holder who uses the GPL.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 11, 2010 14:28 UTC (Fri) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link] This is an accurate analysis of the situation. No, there's nothing much the FSF could "do" to Apple, on a couple of grounds. In addition to their being in a situation of inadvertent infringement, there's no revenue associated with GNUgo, either for the FSF or for Apple (since the program was given away for free). The FSF cannot argue that Apple has damaged them in any way: the source code was publicly available, Apple never made a dime on GNUgo, and the FSF never lost one. All they could get (in an optimistic world) would be a judge's order to take the app down, which Apple's already done. (I wonder whether the FSF could get a contempt charge for bringing a frivolous lawsuit. Quite possibly, I think.)
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 11, 2010 15:40 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
http://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance
"In most ways, this is a typical enforcement action for the FSF: we want to resolve this situation as amicably as possible. We have not sued Apple, nor have we sent them any legal demand that they remove the programs from the App Store."
There was no lawsuit. You seem to be engaged in wishful thinking and speculation and basing your arguments on your dislike of FSF. Apple has zero grounds for a contempt charge based on a mere license violation notice.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 23, 2010 18:44 UTC (Wed) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
But they were talking to apple, and decided to not wait for the results but publicly damn them. I think that's stupid - esp considering the talks were (some ppl said) constructive.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 23, 2010 19:05 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
You are free to criticize their approach and they have cited their reasons for taking this approach and outcome was going to be exactly the same regardless of the approach in this case but nevertheless lefty who really should be knowing better is making an incorrect claim about a lawsuit. That is a dent on his credibility.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 11, 2010 15:30 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] What if they are original, sealed SUSE boxes; but stolen from them and the thief sold them to BestBuy?
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 10, 2010 23:00 UTC (Thu) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link] I don't believe I so much "challenged" the FSF to conduct similar enforcement actions against Google and Microsoft as wondered why they haven't, given that there are very similar issues to the ones Brett Smith called out with respect to Apple in his postings. I'm not "taken aback" by the FSF's extremely broad definition of a "distributor"this isn't a new position on their partbut I do see it as a counterproductive one in the long run. If you're willing to excuse Best Buy on the basis that "they don't know what's in the boxes", then Apple equally "doesn't know what's in the boxes" of the apps that get sold through the store. They don't ask developers for source code, they don't "check licenses", and they rely on the developers' representations that the apps submitted to the App Store don't have any legal barriers to their being sold there. I've said that the FSF can blame Apple as much as they like, but all they've done is ensure that no iPhone user (of which there are about 50 million to date) will be exposed to GPL-licensed software. If the GPL was violated by anyone, it was the developer. Apple was as much of a "victim" here as the FSF.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 11, 2010 3:14 UTC (Fri) by Kamilion (guest, #42576) [Link]
For clarity: I live in the Bay Area. I am an Apple shareholder. (Hey, a couple shares counts!) I do not own any Apple products. (They're freakin' expensive!) I use Lucid on a GIGABYTE GA-880GMA-UD2H, AMD Phenom-II X6 1055T, 4GB of OCZ Gold DDR3-1600 memory for ~$400. I'm a sysadmin. I work at Ames.
I've taken apart many Apple products. I've also seen them in pretty bad shape. (Ever seen a powerbook run over by an SUV? It *still* booted. Ethernet & External monitor, 100% data recovery on it's own power.)
Their engineering is without a doubt, top notch. They take control of *ALL* aspects of their product, better than *ANY* company I've ever seen. They have some tremendously gifted software and hardware engineers working for them. They have willingly, and with total forethought, built themselves a walled garden; and are aggressively defending their marked territory. It's theirs. They built it on practically giving people the finger and telling them, do it our way or get out. Right upfront and straightforward-like. Total honesty. You know _exactly_ where you stand with them.
They've engineered a extremely impressive and powerful unix based system that works in total harmony with their ecosystem of products. While you are in their walled garden, you are agreeing to have them act on your behalf in ways other companies simply do not have the cojones to even attempt. Bust up your ipad, or macbook pro? Applecare's got you covered, with some of the friendliest tech-help you can pay for. And man, is it ever expensive.
But if you're amenable to their terms, they offer a much stabler ecosystem than their market competitor, Microsoft. When Apple says their product does something, IT DOES IT. WITH STYLE. THE FIRST TIME. AND EVERY TIME. And easy enough for pretty much anybody to use. With Microsoft? Welll.... It's sort of a crapshoot. Will it work? Will it bluescreen? Is this driver signed? What's this executable in my tempfolder?
And yet, Apple are incredibly generous with what they develop; giving us massive amounts of very very well-tested and ingeniously designed software, with more open source license terms than ours. "Hey, do whatever, man, just don't take our name off. No strings."
Boot Camp has it's own ToS that basically lets Apple off the hook when they're not in control of the system. This is a very neon-sign obvious, and very intentional 'backdoor' right down to the hardware, unlocked and fully open. But you're own your own if you go that route, and they make this abundantly clear. Abundantly clear as in "Secret Hideouts" in children's cartoons. The ones with the giant neon signs stating that in fact, the building below it is indeed either a Secret Hideout of some nefarious character or the Secret Hideout of the heroic character.
The iPhone and it's larger cousin, the iPad, are appliances. They are not computers. Apple has *EVERY* aspect of them covered in-house but the applications, where they only *want* to go so far, making sure people make good use of what was engineered for them to be 'accepted' into the App Store.
This is their way.
We have our own way; and the viral nature of the GPL can be both a blessing and a curse. We stand for things other than they do; we believe in total openness and freedom, and stamped that freedom down in stone as well. We stick to our guns just as they stick to theirs. We have just as much right to do it our way as they have to do it their way. It's not a competition, we don't have to 'recruit' people, it's simply a choice. Allowing someone to make a choice by bringing Open software in front of them and letting them weigh the benefits for themselves without coercion.
We don't choose to be better than everyone else.
But hey, it works for us. It's our itch -- We tend not to cater to people that aren't computer users like ourselves; Apple does. They're good at that. And better yet, they're successful at it.
I can put it like this.
You can hand the same person practically any other modern touch based device, and it's impossible to shut them up about every little flaw in it.
Except maybe a Nintendo. But if you peer into their history, they paved the way for the same type of successes Apple is seeing now. A focus on fluidity and immersion is a core part of the Nintendo experience, and it always has been. Their quality and attention to detail keeps people both old and young coming back to their products. Apple's trying to give people the same timeless appliance quality as the venerable Super Nintendo.
And going about it in much the same way ;)
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 11, 2010 6:42 UTC (Fri) by laf0rge (subscriber, #6469) [Link]
Whether or not David Schlesinger approves of the FSFs action or that companies like 'best buy' are considere distributors:
The legal situation is quite clear. Even if you are a retail store that is selling some products containing software (either on CD/DVD, or on flash memory inside an embedded product): You are bound by copyright law and you need to make sure you have the right to distribute those copies.
If that is practical or not, it is an existing legal situation. And it is in many cases the only way how to ensure GPL compliance at all, e.g. if those retailers buy directly from a foreign vendor, or they buy from a source that is unknown - the only lead is to go after such distributors.
The claims you may have against them might be different than against the original infringer (if there is such an entity), but still you can ask them to stop their behavior in violation of copyright.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 11, 2010 13:59 UTC (Fri) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link] Anyone who claims the "legal situation" of Apple's being a "distributor" under the GPL is "clear" doesn't actually understand the legal situation. Actually, the "legal situation" is completely unclear, at least of anything other than wishful thinking. The FSF's interpretation (of its own license) says that Apple's a "distributor" under the GPL, no question of that. There's a serious question as to whether a judge would agree, and no one's in a position to answer that, short of a court case. In any case, the FSF has effectively told Apple that (again, in the FSF's view) Apple is somehow liable for the copyright infringement committed by Robota Softwarehouse, and the law certainly doesn't support that view. The upshot, as I've been saying, is that if it's impossible for end developers to indemnify Apple (or Best Buy or WalMart) against the sort of "enforcement action" that the FSF has engaged in here, then Apple, Best Buy and WalMart will ensure that they make no GPL-licensed software available to consumers. Apple's apparently already done that. No, it's not practical: it's hugely self-defeating in my view. But if the FSF wants to ensure that "free software" is painted into an ever-smaller corner, this is a fine way to go about it.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 12, 2010 2:00 UTC (Sat) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link]
I work at a big-box retailer. All the time we get recalls of product, because it's not legal for us to sell. Usually, these are recalls of mislabeled food or clothing but once or twice I've seen recalls due to copyright violations.
Any item sold in violation of the GPL is going to be the exact same thing. The FSF has explicitly said that that's what they want to happen, that they're not going to try and sue Best Buy or Wal-Mart over an accident.
Apple distributes the code. That's simple English. Apple, Wal-Mart or Best Buy can't sell illegal copies; that's the law. No one is interested in fighting a major company in court over an innocent mistake, and the FSF has shown by its actions its willingness to avoid court, so all of these companies are going to make the illegal code not available to the consumer and that's going to be the end of it.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 11, 2010 8:54 UTC (Fri) by vadim (guest, #35271) [Link] I've said that the FSF can blame Apple as much as they like, but all they've done is ensure that no iPhone user (of which there are about 50 million to date) will be exposed to GPL-licensed software. If the GPL was violated by anyone, it was the developer. Apple was as much of a "victim" here as the FSF.That's entirely fine with me. I'll just develop for other platforms. As a developer of GPL software I think there's one thing you don't understand: I don't release it under the BSD very intentionally. I'm not interested in the widest distribution possible, but in the widest distribution possible when every term of the GPL is followed. I'm not interested in compromising over this, as the GPL is really the kind of license I want. Therefore I really do prefer the software not to be distributed at all, to it being distributed against the GPL.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 11, 2010 14:22 UTC (Fri) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link]
I'm glad that's "fine with" you, Vadim. I assume it's "fine with" the FSF as well.
It's actually "fine with" me, too: it can only have the effect of increasing the desire of developers-in-general to go with non-GPL alternatives (e.g. clangwhich Apple is pushingand bionicwhich Google is pushingfor starts) and to avoid the use of GPL-licensed code if they wish to put their efforts onto a platformsuch as the iPhonewhere they might actually see wide use.
While is may be "fine" for some people, it's not (in my opinion) at all healthy for the "free software movement". If the software is as "free" as the FSF wants it to be, but no one to speak of uses it (think "The HURD"), would that constitute a "victory"...?
Seems a sort of a Pyrrhic one to me.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 11, 2010 16:04 UTC (Fri) by vadim (guest, #35271) [Link] Again, you're still thinking of "world domination". I personally don't care. It's actually "fine with" me, too: it can only have the effect of increasing the desire of developers-in-general to go with non-GPL alternatives (e.g. clang—which Apple is pushing—and bionic—which Google is pushing—for starts) and to avoid the use of GPL-licensed code if they wish to put their efforts onto a platform—such as the iPhone—where they might actually see wide use. Sure, Apple can push whatever they want. On my part I'm not interested in anything they make (too closed), and don't work on any Apple specific software. Some of it should build on OS X, but I don't offer support for it.
While is may be "fine" for some people, it's not (in my opinion) at all healthy for the "free software movement". If the software is as "free" as the FSF wants it to be, but no one to speak of uses it (think "The HURD"), would that constitute a "victory"...? Linux has a large enough userbase for me, so I'm not really worried. Again, I'm not interested in huge numbers for the numbers' sake. Any usage that goes against the GPL doesn't benefit me and doesn't count, even if that's a million users. Seems a sort of a Pyrrhic one to me. I consider it good, or worst case value neutral. My assessment is: Usage according to the GPL is +1, contrary to the GPL is -1 or 0 (depends on why), no usage is 0. Therefore, in general, a change from infringement to compliance is excellent, and from infringement to non-usage somewhat disappointing but still an improvement. Since I find all Apple platforms too restrictive to even consider supporting them, usage or lack of it is overall irrelevant. If it happens to work, good, if it doesn't I don't really care.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 23, 2010 18:50 UTC (Wed) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
Well, than you and Lefty simply have a different pov and goal. I'm more or less on lefty's side here, as I think Free Software is important for the world - to help poorer people, defeat evil companies and protect free speech. For that, FOSS needs to be as big as possible, preferably everywhere. So I'm less and less supportive of the FSF and more and more on the side of the FSFE which is far more practical.
If you just want to hack with some friends on cool stuff and have fun, yes, you're just fine where you are with FOSS and the FSF. If you want to move it forward because you believe it is *important* for the world, FSF is doing you a dis-favor.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 14, 2010 19:00 UTC (Mon) by aigarius (subscriber, #7329) [Link]
Actually users of free software are far less valuable to the success of the free software movement than *contributors* to free software. If you are a free software user on the iPhone platform, you are very unlikely to become a contributor, because the technical limitations prevent you from tinkering with your software that is most often required to make a contribution. Sure - you can report bugs, fix online docs and maybe translate the next version, but for majority of contributions the iPhone platform is rather useless.
If you already jailbroke your iPhone (enabling you to tinker), then you can install the software to it without AppStore.
In the end the benefit from having a GPL app be represented in Apple App Store is of miniscule benefit to the free software community. So much so, that I would argue that the benefit of this FSF action (to public awareness of free software) is actually greater than the benefits all GPL software in the AppStore has brough so far.
Other app stores on mobile devices do not suffer as much, because it is easier to install an non-approved applications onto Adroid, Maemo and even WinMo devices.
Obligations of noncommercial distributors Posted Jun 11, 2010 9:16 UTC (Fri) by dark (subscriber, #8483) [Link] From the article: A download-only site like FileHippo should be in compliance provided that its binaries are unaltered; if the upstream source of the binary did not include a compliant source code offer, it would be the upstream source that is non-compliant.I don't see how this follows from the GPL. A noncommercial distributor must still pass on the offer it received from its supplier. If it did not receive such an offer, then it cannot pass it on and it must not distribute the binary. You're probably thinking of a slightly different case: if the supplier did include an offer of source code but does not honor it. Then the noncommercial distributor did satisfy its obligations and your reasoning does apply.
Obligations of noncommercial distributors Posted Jun 13, 2010 14:30 UTC (Sun) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link]
"dark" is correct: there's nothing in the GPL to suggest that one gets a pass because binaries are "unaltered". Apple didn't alter the binaries it received from Robota Softwarehouse, either.
Obligations of noncommercial distributors Posted Jun 13, 2010 21:04 UTC (Sun) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]
> Apple didn't alter the binaries it received from Robota Softwarehouse,
> either.
Doesn't it encrypt and sign them? So that they are Apple-DRM compliant?
jake
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 12, 2010 1:56 UTC (Sat) by cyd (guest, #4153) [Link]
> The other charge made against the FSF in this case is that it singled out Apple as a public example solely for the sake of publicity. That is speculative, of course.
I subscribe to lwn.net for insightful and balanced articles, not Fox-style "some people say" journalism. Two thumbs down.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 13, 2010 14:45 UTC (Sun) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link]
I'm not sure I understand this complaint. Having a significant degree of expertise in the legalities of open source licensing, as I do, should raise my criticisms a little above "some people say".
Beyond that, if you're looking for "balance", maybe you can ask the FSF's Chief Compliance Engineer Brett Smith why he hasn't replied to my original emailed questions on this subject, nor to the couple of follow-up "pings" I sent him.
There isn't a lot of "speculation" required here: there's been bad blood between the FSF and Apple for years, entirely at the FSF's instigation. As I've mentioned, Richard Stallman told audiences for some two years that Apple had a "secret back door" in OS X, right up until the point where he was apparently "persuaded" by someone (and my money's on Apple's Legal department) to fully retract that claim and to offer a full apology, on the FSF web site, to Apple for having made defamatory statements about their business that he couldn't back up with a single shred of evidence other than "some people say".
Funny Thing. When you consider that and also the completely unprecedented nature of an "enforcement action" which requires not one, but two, high-profile blog entries on the FSF's site, something whichto the best of my knowledgehas never happened before, you have to wonder a little why Apple is getting such "special treatment" here.
I was hoping that a response from Brett Smith might clarify the FSF's position on GPL-licensed software in Google's Android Market and Microsoft's Windows Marketplace for Mobile. So far, no such response seems forthcoming from the FSF.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 13, 2010 20:31 UTC (Sun) by SkyGuy (guest, #60773) [Link]
One thing I don't understand: Why would anyone expect Apple to do anything other than remove the app from the app store? Changes to Apple's Terms of Service would take them and their legal beagles some time to work out, and in the meantime they'd be violating the GPL. The only choice Apple had was to remove the app from the app store, unless they wanted a lawsuit.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 16, 2010 17:27 UTC (Wed) by jcm (subscriber, #18262) [Link]
Look. We all like Apple's shiny crap (I'm writing this on a Macbook Pro), and we love to listen to Uncle Steve, but at the end of the day, many of their practices are quite reprehensible to our community. The best way to tell Apple how you feel is to not buy an iPhone. I made the iPhone mistake several times myself (actually, three times...) but I have well and truly learned my lesson now. Yes, it's *very* shiny, yes it's *very* polished, and Android just isn't quite the same. But there are alternatives and we must exercise restraint before giving Apple any more support for their app store.
We only have to wait just long enough for a Federal anti-trust suit to be brought, which really can't be very far away. They need to be forced to do the right thing, which in my mind includes being absolutely compelled by all force of the law to open up their App Store to all.
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL Posted Jun 18, 2010 13:16 UTC (Fri) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link]
Well said - I'm very tempted to get an iPhone, but the idea of supporting a closed model for phones and ultimately computers and 'content' (i.e. a closed Internet mediated mostly by 'apps' that go through an app store) still puts me off. And Android deserves some support as the closest rival to iPhone/iOS, and seems quite usable overall.
|
|||||||||||||