FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL [LWN.net]

FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL

Posted Jun 11, 2010 6:42 UTC (Fri) by laf0rge (subscriber, #6469)
In reply to: FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL by Lefty
Parent article: FSF takes on Apple's App Store over GPL

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.

(Log in to post comments)

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.