| |||||||||||||
FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPLFSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPLPosted Jun 10, 2010 4:28 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL by lfelipe Parent article: FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL
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)
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||||