| |||||||||||||
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPLFSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPLPosted Jun 10, 2010 3:44 UTC (Thu) by lfelipe (subscriber, #50478)Parent article: FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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...
|
|||||||||||||