Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

By Jake Edge
July 21, 2010

In light of the recent GPL compliance complaint made by the Free Software Foundation against Apple's App Store, which sells and distributes software for Apple gadgets, it was probably inevitable that other problem applications would surface. While there are various opinions on whether the App Store can legally distribute GPL-covered binaries—along with diverging opinions on what benefits, if any, the App Store provides to free software projects—it is clear that some people object to their GPL-licensed code appearing in the App Store. So it shouldn't come as a huge surprise that the port of the The Battle for Wesnoth for the iPhone/iPad, which was released last November, has run into some resistance.

As is usual for the wesnoth-dev mailing list, the discussion was largely polite and respectful, but there was clear disagreement. Rusty Russell raised the issue after a friend showed him Wesnoth running on an iPad: "That's great, except that it came via the Apple App Store. I didn't think that was allowed under the GPL?". He pointed to the FSF's blog post about GNU Go, and noted that he was "uncomfortable with Apple's restrictions on the devices after they sell them".

Wesnoth lead developer David White responded that, unlike GNU Go, Wesnoth had been ported to Apple's devices with the explicit endorsement of the development community. He and the other developers, including Kyle Poole who did the port, believed that the port was "acting within the GPL" because the source was available and:

It is entirely permissible for anyone to compile the game from source and distribute it using their own distribution mechanism to people with an iPhone device. There may be some barriers to distribution but these barriers are entirely technical due to the "walled garden" nature of the iPhone.

White went on to describe the benefits that he saw from putting the application into the App Store: revenue for the project, which is being used to fund art development, and raising the profile of FLOSS gaming. He noted that it helped users become more aware of FLOSS games, but also made other free software game projects aware of the App Store as a distribution platform. Russell didn't find those to be particularly compelling arguments in favor of distributing Wesnoth in the App Store, in fact he found the opposite to be true.

Because the App Store EULA imposes restrictions on what users can do with the binaries they download, the FSF and others believe that it runs afoul of the "further restrictions" clause in section 6 of the GPL. As Russell points out, the "walled garden" that Apple is creating violates his understanding of users' rights under the GPL:

I want recipients of my software to receive all the benefits that I have received. I want them to be able to mod, share and experiment with the software, and this is reflected in my preference for the GPL.

It's not really relevant *how* people are prevented from doing so, except to the questions "Does it matter?" and "Can I do anything to prevent it?".

So, does it matter? As a software developer, a machine on which the owner cannot choose what software to create and run is anathema. As a free software developer, a machine which restricts free software is particularly disturbing.

In addition, Russell is skeptical that users are really being exposed to free software gaming, instead they are just finding "a great game for $5". He also believes it's "self-defeating" to strengthen the Apple platform by putting more free software on it. But others clearly disagree. Patrick Parker noted that it was not a secret that an iPhone port was taking place, as it had been discussed on the forums and on IRC, and that a complaint at this late date was "selfish". Furthermore, he was unhappy seeing Wesnoth used as a weapon:

You essentially are saying that you want Battle for Wesnoth to be used as a tool in the "Freeness" war against Apple, regardless of the wishes of the Lead Developer of Wesnoth, the active developers of Wesnoth, or the Wesnoth userbase itself. To me that seems selfish, not selfless. If you have a low opinion of Apple and their restrictive licenses, which I know I certainly do, there are plenty of other ways to go about expressing it.

Russell agreed with some of that, saying that he worked on Wesnoth because it aligned with his selfish goals: "I want to encourage Freeness, and helping Wesnoth seemed like a good way to do that. Or, if you prefer, 'a tool in the "Freeness" war'." But he also acknowledged that others had different goals, which is where the license comes into play: "that's why we have a license, and a common understanding of what it means".

The FSF's complaint, which raised the license issue for the first time, came well after the Wesnoth port was completed after some eight months of work by Poole. That puts the project, and White in particular, in an uncomfortable position. His "main concern" when Poole approached him about porting the code was to ensure that the full source code would be available. The source is available, but White is, to some extent, stuck between a rock and a hard place:

On one hand I feel an obligation to Kyle [Poole] since I told him I felt he could distribute Wesnoth on the app store if he undertook the substantial effort to complete the port. On the other hand, I am of course obliged to all of the Wesnoth developers who have contributed content under the terms of the GPL, and specifically those ones who feel strongly that source code availability and other measures are not sufficient to meet the terms of the GPL and thus that Wesnoth being distributed on the app store is a very serious violation of the GPL.

Poole describes the port as having an impact that is very much in keeping with the ideas behind the GPL, even if Apple's EULA tries to hinder it:

As a direct result of me spending more than 8 months fulltime working on the iPhone port and publishing the source code, many other iPhone projects have benefited from my work, not to mention improvements which can be used for other Wesnoth branches such as Android, or backported to the trunk. I think the spirit of GPL very much comes through in the iPhone port.

But the power grab enabled by Apple's EULA is sweeping, which is what concerns Russell: "AFAICT, the device is designed not to allow the freedoms the GPL tried to guarantee." By not allowing Wesnoth binaries to be redistributed, Apple has gone further than others, he said:

But disallowing independent distribution is... breathtaking. None of the platforms I've ever coded for have done that, and it really scares me. I'm sure you've thought about this far more that I have: am I overreacting?

His question remains unanswered, at least directly, but certainly some see the arguments made by Russell and the FSF as too rigidly interpreting the GPL. For example, Richard Kettering resolutely defends what he perceives to be the interests of the artists and musicians in the project:

We do not see a conflict between the GPL and the iOS, and we'd be outraged if you take wesnoth away from us in order to strive for a slightly more fundamentalist interpretation of the GPL. Removing our ability to run the software we have built, on the platform we want, just because you dislike the platform, flies in the face of everything the GPL has ever stood for.

The irony of that last sentence seems to have escaped Kettering, but Russell is quick to point it out: "Generalize the words 'just because you dislike the platform' to 'for any reason' and you've summed up the problem with these devices very well :("

White has suggested that a list of Wesnoth contributors be created from the Subversion logs, and that each be contacted to be made aware of the situation. Any that are willing can make a licensing exception to allow their contribution to be used in an application distributed through the App Store. Those that aren't willing, and Russell and others may well be in that camp, would have their contributions removed from the App Store version.

Exactly what form that exception would take is up in the air. Paul Ebermann is concerned that wording it will be difficult, but White disagrees as he thinks a specific App Store exception can be made. Currently, the plan is to convene an IRC meeting of all concerned project members to discuss the problem. Decisions on license exception wording, as well as a plan to remove any content from contributors unwilling to agree, will presumably be worked on as part of that meeting.

Apple does provide the means for applications to present their own custom EULA, so Poole looked into the possibility of using the GPL as Wesnoth's EULA. But, Apple has closed off that potential remedy as well: "Apple states that any custom EULA must meet their 'minimum terms' which can't be more permissive than their default." But, as Gabriel Morin pointed out, there are even worse terms in the Apple's iPhone Developer Program License, which Poole was required to sign, but he "probably didn't mention it since the agreement prohibits making public statements about it". Morin doesn't see how it is at all possible to reconcile the GPL and that agreement.

This is clearly a clash between a license intended to ensure user freedoms and a company hell-bent on ensuring that it is in complete control of what can run on the devices it sells. There may be ways to remove code or content from the Wesnoth codebase, such that all that remains has some kind of license exception to allow it to run on iPhones and iPads, but the question will still remain: does working around Apple's draconian requirements really help the cause of free software? Opinions clearly vary, but it is something our communities will continue to struggle with.

One clear lesson from all of this was noted by Parker: "However, if I ever start my own open source project, I will probably require copyright removal or assignment as a precondition to inclusion (much like the FSF does with its own programs)". Had a copyright assignment to a Wesnoth non-profit been required for all contributions, all of the App Store licensing problems could have been avoided, as the copyright owner could have issued a separate license. Whether as vibrant a community would have arisen around this hypothetical "Wesnoth with copyright assignment" project is an open question.

Apple is unlikely to change its terms regardless of what Wesnoth decides. Its walled garden is working very well for it and few, if any, of its customers are clamoring for a change. While it is very cool to see a free software game like Wesnoth running on these über-trendy gadgets, it is a bit hard to see how it brings more folks into the free software world. On the other hand, it's hard to see how denying the iPhone/iPad universe access to Wesnoth is going to make a difference either. It's really up to consumers to recognize—and clamor for—devices that respect their freedoms. So far, that just hasn't happened.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 21, 2010 15:47 UTC (Wed) by mjthayer (guest, #39183) [Link] (1 responses)

> One clear lesson from all of this was noted by Parker: "However, if I ever start my own open source project, I will probably require copyright removal or assignment as a precondition to inclusion (much like the FSF does with its own programs)".

That sort of copyright assignment sounds like a rather dangerous thing for the project, as it would be clearly designed to let the project get around what many contributors probably see as their rights to their code. I wonder if some sort of middle ground could be found, like keeping good track of all contributors in case that sort of issue arises, along with some sort of agreement that if a contributor can't reasonably be contacted their contributions can be used under a more liberal licence (MIT or whatever)?

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 21, 2010 19:18 UTC (Wed) by ClaudeRubinson (subscriber, #11921) [Link]

> That sort of copyright assignment sounds like a rather dangerous thing for the project, as it would be clearly designed to let the project get around what many contributors probably see as their rights to their code.

That's why the FSF, when they request copyright assignment, sign a contract ensuring that your code will always be released under a copyleft-style license. Otherwise, the code reverts to you. See http://lwn.net/Articles/359013/

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 21, 2010 15:50 UTC (Wed) by pj (subscriber, #4506) [Link]

...if only it'd been an Android app they wouldn't have this problem...

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 21, 2010 15:55 UTC (Wed) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link] (7 responses)

This is clearly a clash between a license intended to ensure user freedoms and a company hell-bent on ensuring that it is in complete control of what can run on the devices it has sold

there; fixed that for you.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 22, 2010 4:07 UTC (Thu) by djao (guest, #4263) [Link] (6 responses)

Why bother with this correction? It is a distinction without a difference. A given device has no relevance to user freedoms until after it has been sold, so arguing about pre-sale devices is meaningless from the point of view of user freedom. Regardless of whether or not the "has sold" part is stated explicitly, the context of the discussion already makes it clear that a given device is only relevant to the discussion after its sale.

Imagine if Microsoft exercised complete control over what can run on the operating systems that it has sold. Is this acceptable? No? Then why should Apple be allowed to do so?

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 22, 2010 7:05 UTC (Thu) by Felix.Braun (guest, #3032) [Link] (1 responses)

I think you missed Trelane's sarcasm. I understood his comment as underlining the absurdity of wanting to control a device that Apple has sold.

It is really sad that customers are willing to let Apple dictate what software runs on devices they own. But alas – as is shown by the commercial failure of free devices like the Nexus-One or the Neo Freerunner – freedom doesn't seem to be valued as much in the broader public as it is in our community.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 22, 2010 7:52 UTC (Thu) by djao (guest, #4263) [Link]

Certainly the premise of post-sale control is absurd to you, me, and (presumably) to Trelane, but it is far from absurd in the view of the general public. Indeed the (non-sarcastic) attitude of "they created the device, why can't they control everything about it?" is far more prevalent than the notion that users should have software freedom.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 22, 2010 15:45 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link] (1 responses)

Why bother with this correction? It is a distinction without a difference.

No; it's the difference between night and day. In either case, a set of stars is pouring out light, right?

What's the difference between selling a builing with a table and chairs artfully arranged and selling a building with a table and chairs artfully arranged that the purchaser may not move or alter (real-life scenario; thanks Gehry). Add a required human or even robotic enforcer and you're getting toward the difference between controlling the software on a phone you're selling and controlling the software on a phone you've sold.

A given device has no relevance to user freedoms until after it has been sold, so arguing about pre-sale devices is meaningless from the point of view of user freedom.

That's rather the point I'm trying to make.

the context of the discussion already makes it clear that a given device is only relevant to the discussion after its sale.

But that's not what the sentence said, and I doubt very many people would quibble with Apple controlling the software on the phones it's selling. As you're saying, it's the control over the phones it's sold that's the key point of contention and perhaps the heart of the disagreement between those who don't see a problem and those who do.

Imagine if Microsoft exercised complete control over what can run on the operating systems that it has sold. Is this acceptable? No? Then why should Apple be allowed to do so?

Ah, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I think we both agree that Apple-like control (they already exercise control over end use through the EULA, WGA, compulsory updates, etc.)

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 22, 2010 15:48 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]

agree that Apple-like control over post-sale (i.e. other people's) devices is absurdly bad policy and perhaps also technology.

(sigh; I *thought* I'd proofread it!)

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 23, 2010 0:14 UTC (Fri) by jmorris42 (guest, #2203) [Link] (1 responses)

> Imagine if Microsoft exercised complete control over
> what can run on the operating systems that it has sold.

We don't have to imagine, it is called the Xbox and Microsoft clearly see the future in that direction. I was warning about the Xboxing of the PC years ago but of course I was wrong because when it happens it will be the iPhoning of the PC because Apple is just that Kewl.

And forget any anti-trust action because Microsoft will just be following Apple and Google down well worn roads when they finally do it. Disgusting how many glowing Apple one sees amongst the supposed Open Source crowd, helping Steve buy enough rope to hang all of us.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 23, 2010 0:16 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

apple I will agree with you on, but I don't see how google deserves you ire. they are building the android OS, but they aren't the ones locking it down (they are perfectly happy to not have it locked down)

this is _very_ different from Apple and Microsoft.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 21, 2010 17:44 UTC (Wed) by davide.del.vento (guest, #59196) [Link] (10 responses)

This was clearly White's mistake.
Wesnoth being distributed on the app store is a very serious violation of the GPL and White shouldn't have "blessed" Poole's intentions.

Now, there might be workarounds to not waste Poole's work, but if Apple has restrictions incompatible with the GPL, it's Apple's problem.

I think that if they change the Wesnoth's license (or add an exception) it would be a very sad day for Free Software, bowing to the might of the anti-free kings

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 21, 2010 18:03 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link] (8 responses)

It's not just a sad day. But it should serve as a wake-up call about where the market is headed. As mobile device form factors become more and more pervasive device specific application gardens are going to become a stronger market force as a differentiator across brands.

Is there anything stopping an Android device manufacturer from creating a EULA constrained walled garden inside a larger/fractured Android ecosystem to run on locked down devices? I'm not aware of anything that would prevent this in the future. I think Google gives device manufactures a lot of leeway in the extent of lockdown. If an Android device maker/ISP wants to control available content I think it might be possible for them to do.

-jef

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 21, 2010 18:17 UTC (Wed) by pj (subscriber, #4506) [Link] (7 responses)

Sure, they could do that, but it just means that a hypothetical Wesnoth-for-android app couldn't be distributed in that walled garden. The Wesnoth folk could distribute the .apk themselves, though, since most android phones can install .apks from the web or from an SDcard.

Android

Posted Jul 21, 2010 18:37 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (2 responses)

Android can be locked down, though, so that it only installs applications from the market, for a vendor-determined definition of "market." There are reports that ATT is doing exactly that.

Android

Posted Jul 21, 2010 18:43 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

A particular carrier can lock down the Android devices it sells, but if I understand correctly the same application, or a modified version of it, can be installed on a non-locked-down Android.

Android

Posted Jul 21, 2010 19:29 UTC (Wed) by yokem_55 (subscriber, #10498) [Link]

For what it is worth, at least for the time being, you can install non-market apps on AT&T's android devices through the adb shell without any hacking or rooting.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 21, 2010 18:38 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link] (3 responses)

Current Android phones....

You missed my point to some degree. What we are seeing with Apple's iOS is potentially a systemic problem with all mobile devices. Unlike traditional PCs..which have a historic cultural of being able to run any operating system available..essentially being unlocked. Mobile devices have historically not be as open to repurposing or installing alternative operating systems. We are seeing Android phones that are not unlockable from device manufacturers. That's just another symptom of the larger problem.

What I'm saying is there is a deeper problem lurking..a cultural problem between mobile device manufactures and participants in a maker culture (FLOSS advocates are just a subset of a larger maker culture where reporposing hardware to do what you want it to do not what the manufacturer says you are allowed to do is the key issue. Software freedom is just a subset of that more fundamental statement about hardware consumer freedom).

Android devices right now maybe open enough for 3rd party application distribution..but there's no reason to expect them to be in the future. If anything there is pressure to lock mobile device down into ISP specific application channels from a revenue consideration. A locked down Android phone that you can't put another operating system on could easily be locked down further to prevent you from installing additional applications out of band via your sdcard or from a url. Its just a matter of time before an ISP feels the market pressure to do that and drive people through their own ISP branded store. Nothing is stopping that sort of lock down from happening other than consumer interest. Google isn't prohibiting that level of lockdown as far as I know.

And its not just android phones. Other types of devices.. like the nook and kindle ereaders are under pressure to _not_ be general purpose devices..even though they could be repurposed for that easily.

Its a looming cultural problem. As devices become less and less general purpose by design..there's more and more incentive for OEMs/ISPs to contain the consumer in a confined application space as a revenue generator...especially when the devices themselves are offered at loss-leader pricing and there is an expectation that revenue will be generated via other means.

-jef

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 21, 2010 22:11 UTC (Wed) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] (1 responses)

A very valid point, but it is worth considering the historical progression that you seem to be missing despite the road blocks:

All phones completely locked down -> some phones partially open -> some phones very open.

This is major progress in my book. Naturally, it does not mean that your concerns are invalid, but simply that I perceive the phone ecosystem as a whole as becoming more open, not less.

That being the case, I don't wee why GPL developers (and anyone else wanting to control distribution of their apps) would not pressure Apple to remove that silly inherent copy restriction, since it has nothing to do with their software that they (Apple) wrote, and it hardly seems vital to their business model. There are very good reasons for other non GPL devs to not like this policy and they should make apple aware of their concerns before simply assuming that Apple will never change. After all, I would not assume that Apple is not very scared of the real android threat to their current bread and butter (they would be stupid not to be, and they are not stupid). If lifting this simple restriction means that apple can appease a lot more users and devs, and fight off android a bit longer, why wouldn't they?

On a final note, it seems ironic that a game might actually be free software's killer app (the one over which this battle is fought) for the iphone! :)

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 21, 2010 22:18 UTC (Wed) by mjthayer (guest, #39183) [Link]

> On a final note, it seems ironic that a game might actually be free software's killer app (the one over which this battle is fought) for the iphone! :)

If Wesnoth does stay in the AppStore, it will be interesting to see what the medium-term effects are, both for the AppStore and for FLOSS. Material coming up for another LWN analysis?

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 21, 2010 23:19 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link]

The mistake here IMO is allowing the GPL application into the walled garden. Sure it grants exposure and might make the developers some cash to spend on the project but the draconian EULA, the client restrictions and the locked down OS are all exactly what FOSS has been striving against.

All we do by allowing GPL software to have an exception for the app store is to validate the Apple model, after all some future company can create an app store with even more draconian restrictions and they can be sure GPL software will get an "exception" right?

It's a very big mistake to allow this IMO. The future is an Open Android platform that has the same true user freedoms we've come to value in the PC space. Sure the carriers can try to lock down the phones, even using Android but we shouldn't give the weight of the FOSS advantage to anyone that restricts FOSS and specifically writes their EULA to exclude FOSS (it's no question in my mind that Apple wrote their developer agreement to exclude FOSS). All we do is validate the broken software model and restrictive usage agreements by giving exceptions.

There is an all out war on FOSS ideals being waged by companies that themselves use FOSS and we can't be giving ground or exceptions to the GPL or we risk destroying our own community. Maybe that's alarmist but I just don't think validating these restrictions is in the long term interest of the community.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 21, 2010 18:07 UTC (Wed) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]

He could always distribute Wesnoth on the Cydia store.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 21, 2010 18:57 UTC (Wed) by dbruce (guest, #57948) [Link] (8 responses)

Hi,

I'm the lead developer and maintainer for Tux Math and Tux Typing (http://tux4kids.alioth.debian.org), and I have also considered whether it is possible to offer Tux Math on the iPhone. I really detest Apple's policies regarding lock-down, but I have to admit that most kids love the iPhone, and there would be some educational value to having Tux Math there.

So, I talked to a lot of people, posted on some mailing lists that have knowledgable people, and came to the conclusion that it would be legally dubious to offer Tux Math as an iPhone app, although we might get away with it.

Tux Math has historically been a "GPLv2 or later" project, although many of our files suffer from some sloppiness of documentation. Almost all of the code comes from developers internal to the project. However, we have a few files that state "GPLv3 or later". Most of these are our own, and we could just relicense them however we want, but there is some outside code (maybe 1% or less of the code base) that is definitely "GPLv3 or later". So, the project as a whole has become "GPLv3 or later", even though almost all the code is GPLv2+. (We are consider cleaning up all the notices and moving all the files to GPLv3+).

My take on GPL3 and the iPhone is that they are pretty unequivocally incompatible. GPL2 has at least some arguable, ambiguous compatibility, IMHO, and there are certainly a few GPL2 apps in the App Store.

It should be noted that I have never read Apple's developer agreement, but what I have heard suggests it goes strongly against the principles of free software.

So, I reluctantly concluded that it would not be possible to put Tux Math on the iPhone under completely good faith actions.

David Bruce

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 21, 2010 19:27 UTC (Wed) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link] (1 responses)

If the problem code is really "1% or less of the code base", why not rewrite that code yourselves and then you can distribute the whole under whatever license you choose?

I'm not saying its a good idea, just that it should be legal to do so.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 21, 2010 19:56 UTC (Wed) by dbruce (guest, #57948) [Link]

"If the problem code is really "1% or less of the code base", why not rewrite that code yourselves and then you can distribute the whole under whatever license you choose?"

We could do that, or even just do without the functionality provided by the outside GPL3 code. Still, even as our own project, a non-free relicensing to accomodate the App Store would make me feel like Faust making a pact with Mephistopheles (or perhaps Anakin exploring the dark side of the force, if you prefer).

It's more a balance between our young users saying "Cool! Tux Math is on the iPhone/iPad!" on the one hand, and on the other hand me and the other devs bemoaning the rise of an incredibly locked-down computer platform. I'd like to get our program on it, but only if we can do so under proper Free Software terms.

DSB

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 22, 2010 0:24 UTC (Thu) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link] (1 responses)

So distribute it for Cydia.

A lot of people have Jailbroken phones already. If a bunch of good open source games start appearing only for the Cydia store, that might encourage even more people to "Open source enable" their phones with the jailbreak tools.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 26, 2010 23:56 UTC (Mon) by roelofs (guest, #2599) [Link]

Yup, and as of today, jailbreaking has some level of legal protection in the US (or least isn't a DMCA violation). Three cheers for the EFF.

Greg

Port to Android

Posted Jul 22, 2010 6:20 UTC (Thu) by Cato (guest, #7643) [Link] (2 responses)

Rather than supporting the highly closed iOS platform that is designed to be locked down, just port to Android.

There is a far wider selection of phones available than the iPhone, including some quite low cost ones ($150 or less without contract) as well as high end phones with all the gizmos. Android is fundamentally an open source platform and by all accounts is reasonable to develop for (whether in Java or C/C++). One example of openness: I've just bought an 18 month old G1 phone that originally ran Android 1.0, and can upgrade it to the latest Android 2.2 quite easily via CyanogenMod, whereas the original iPhone can't run iOS 4. Most Android phones are very reflashable and open (some can run Debian).

Android has a great combination of mass market phone apps and Linux tools. It lets me easily do things like run an SSH daemon plus rsync on the phone, so I can back it up exactly as I do with Windows and Linux boxes, using the excellent rsnapshot - not a mass market application but it shows how open it is.

It's quite likely that Android will overtake iOS in market share within a few years. The pace of new Android phones being introduced is increasing (next 6 months will see candybar, various Qwerty sliders and more), and Android is winning market share against iOS, subject to various new product introductions: http://www.fiercemobilecontent.com/pages/u-s-smartphone-m... shows an increase from 2.5% to 13% while Apple's market share remained essentially the same at 24.4%.

Port to Android

Posted Jul 22, 2010 12:46 UTC (Thu) by Cato (guest, #7643) [Link] (1 responses)

Actually Android is already ahead of iPhone, but behind Blackberry, in terms of sales: http://www.tgdaily.com/mobility-brief/50335-android-phone...

Port to Android

Posted Jul 31, 2010 1:52 UTC (Sat) by Linegod (guest, #201) [Link]

This should get more higher interest. While Apple and Android battle it out, RIM just 'works', and as far as I know, has a better method.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 22, 2010 13:29 UTC (Thu) by kh (guest, #19413) [Link]

I would be happy to support GPL'd programs by purchasing them for my (and my kids) /Android/ phones.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 21, 2010 21:51 UTC (Wed) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link]

Requiring a copyright assignment just means that people who don't like the Apple Store probably won't contribute in the first place. Instead of removing and re-writing the code, you would have to write it yourself in the first place. Not only that, but people who don't like paper-work won't contribute code. It doesn't make sense to take a hit now for something you may never need down the line.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 21, 2010 22:20 UTC (Wed) by kunitz (subscriber, #3965) [Link] (1 responses)

What sense does it make to spend months on a "free software" project for the iPhone, if Apple can stop the distribution at any point in time for whatever reason? This is a fundamental incompatibility with free software. Apple has all the rights to limit the distribution of free software and its modification to users.

I hope that capitalism is strong enough to make the iPhone only one short episode of a technological fiefdom. There is no free market if you can buy only from one store.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 22, 2010 0:09 UTC (Thu) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link]

IMO Android in the long run will destroy the Iphone as mass market product and reduce it to a niche market again. Android in the long run has far more resources and companies behind it (and if Nokia would abandon Symbian it would be even better). Apple currently has more sales and more recurring revenue which if they spend that money on development they could slow the transition by keeping the Iphone relevant but in the long run it's an Android world. People (and more importantly the Carriers) are drawn to the openness of Android, the flexibility and the ability of each carrier to innovate the GUI and interface. Verzion was a key player in this with the Droid commercials as Android became a feature that users began demanding.

I believe that ATT changing the Iphone Data plan was the first nail in the coffin of the Iphone. Phones like the Sprint EVO are going to become the gold standard. Open platforms, software flexibility, product differentiation and the ability to customize will eventually win over all the carriers and all that plus unlimited usage will draw the users. The Iphone was a significant step forward in the cellular world but it's a fairly stagnant product in comparison to Android development. I'd bet long term on HTC hardware and Android software personally. That locked down world is going to start to chafe eventually.

The worst thing the FOSS community can do is endorse the Iphone walled garden approach in any way. It's contrary to every principle of free software IMO and will only delay the decline of the Iphone.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 22, 2010 0:47 UTC (Thu) by PaulWay (guest, #45600) [Link]

"Daddy, why can't I run Wesnoth on my iPhone?"

"Well, Rachel, Apple won't let you."

"Why not?"

"Well, the people who wrote Wesnoth like to share the program with everyone. Not just what you see on the screen, but the code behind that that runs the game, and the artwork and everything. And Apple doesn't want to allow people to do that."

"Why do Apple not like people sharing stuff?"

"Because they think that people will pay them more money if they have to buy a separate one instead of sharing it."

"But it's free on the iTunes store?"

"Well, you still wouldn't get the code there, and you still couldn't modify it and put your version on your own iPhone."

"But I don't care about that, Daddy, I just want to run Wesnoth."

"Well, Apple really doesn't care about what you want, Rachel. They just want to make money. And they won't change their license rules even for Wesnoth."

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 22, 2010 4:08 UTC (Thu) by KylePoole (guest, #69183) [Link] (11 responses)

This is a great summary article of the discussion on the wesnoth-dev mailing list, however all posts should be prefaced with "IANAL"...

Rest assured, we will come to an agreeable solution to enable Wesnoth to continue to be distributed on the AppStore. We are also porting to additional mobile platforms such as Android and Palm.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 22, 2010 4:22 UTC (Thu) by jake (editor, #205) [Link] (1 responses)

> We are also porting to additional mobile platforms such as Android and Palm.

I, for one, would be *exceedingly* happy to put up $5 (or even $10) for Wesnoth on Android. Just sayin' ...

jake

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 29, 2010 14:31 UTC (Thu) by Zenith (guest, #24899) [Link]

"Me too!"

I downloaded a bunch of smaller games the other day, and I immediately hoped that Wesnoth had been ported too, but alas, no such luck.

A Civilization and / or Colonization clone like FreeCiv and FreeCol would also get a dollar-vote from me.

In general I think mobile app-stores are a really great opportunity for FOSS games to make a buck for further development.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 22, 2010 6:16 UTC (Thu) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]

Don't forget us poor OpenMoko users :)

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 22, 2010 7:17 UTC (Thu) by Felix.Braun (guest, #3032) [Link]

The N900 port seems to be in need of some help. They are still at v1.6 when upstream as already released v1.8.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 22, 2010 7:21 UTC (Thu) by arctanx (guest, #59239) [Link] (5 responses)

If the aim is to get Wesnoth used by as many people and platforms as possible isn't the GPL the wrong license? Wouldn't it be a more accurate representation of the project's goals to attempt to relicense under a BSD-like license?

If the copyright-holding developers feel that the project should have that priority they would agree to such a change. If they don't agree because they're selfishly using Wesnoth as a vehicle to promote GPL software, then that's their call.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 22, 2010 8:03 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (4 responses)

Ah yes. Because everyone who'd prefer to use the GPL to BSD license is selfish. *That's* a fair characterization (not).

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 22, 2010 8:09 UTC (Thu) by arctanx (guest, #59239) [Link] (3 responses)

That was sarcasm based on the comments directed at Rusty on the list. Apologies if it wasn't clear. :)

(If I'm the one missing the sarcasm... well... darn)

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 22, 2010 11:54 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

No, I didn't notice any sarcasm, probably because I didn't try to read the list thread...

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 30, 2010 5:08 UTC (Fri) by SapientX (guest, #69307) [Link] (1 responses)

I suppose I deserve that, but if you read my later posts you would see that I apologized for my initial judgmental and ignorant accusation. Just in case you were wondering...

-- Patrick Parker a.k.a. "Sapient"

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 30, 2010 7:23 UTC (Fri) by rusty (guest, #26) [Link]

> I suppose I deserve that, but if you read my later posts you would see

Yep that quote was unfortunate, but it stood out I think because the discussion has been so civilized. That's a big reason why Wesnoth is so fun :)

And I'd rather get flamed by Sapient than complimented by a non-contributor any day!

Cheers,
Rusty.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 22, 2010 17:26 UTC (Thu) by ewan (guest, #5533) [Link]

Rest assured, we will come to an agreeable solution to enable Wesnoth to continue to be distributed on the AppStore.

You seem awfully certain of that under the circumstances; how can you be so sure?

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 22, 2010 7:21 UTC (Thu) by vadim (subscriber, #35271) [Link]

One clear lesson from all of this was noted by Parker: "However, if I ever start my own open source project, I will probably require copyright removal or assignment as a precondition to inclusion (much like the FSF does with its own programs)". Had a copyright assignment to a Wesnoth non-profit been required for all contributions, all of the App Store licensing problems could have been avoided, as the copyright owner could have issued a separate license. Whether as vibrant a community would have arisen around this hypothetical "Wesnoth with copyright assignment" project is an open question.

On my part, this would make me much less interested in contributing. If I really wanted to make a patch anyway, I'd go and fork the project. I like the GPL, and have no interest in satisfying Apple's whims.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Posted Jul 22, 2010 9:00 UTC (Thu) by Aissen (subscriber, #59976) [Link] (5 responses)

IANAL, so some things aren't clear

Because the App Store EULA imposes restrictions on what users can do with the binaries they download, the FSF and others believe that it runs afoul of the "further restrictions" clause in section 6 of the GPL. As Russell points out, the "walled garden" that Apple is creating violates his understanding of users' rights under the GPL

It's no secret that Apple is using (and sponsoring) open source projects. The most active of those might be WebKit, which is released under the LGPL. But section 10 of the LGPL looks to have the same terms as the supposedly violated section 6 of the GPL. Yet Apple doesn't allow you to replace you libWebKit.so on your iPhone/iPad. So isn't this a violation of the (L)GPL as well ?

Also, another point of GPL contention, that was brought by Bradley M. Kuhn in one of his latest blog post, linked by LWN and agreed on by Harald Welte:
I'm specifically interested in the installation issue because GPLv2 requires that any binary distribution of Linux (such as one on telephone hardware) include both the source code itself and the scripts to control compilation and installation of the executable. So, if Motorola wrote any helper programs or other software that installs Linux onto the phones, then such software, under GPLv2, is a required part of the complete and corresponding source code of Linux and must be distributed to each buyer of a Motorola Android/Linux phone.

The same could be applied to Apple, which doesn't release its WebKit flashing tools. This is in section 0 of the (L)GPL.

There are subtle difference...

Posted Jul 22, 2010 10:22 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (4 responses)

Yet Apple doesn't allow you to replace you libWebKit.so on your iPhone/iPad. So isn't this a violation of the (L)GPL as well ?

Well, no. This is tivoization: you are free to change libWebKit.so in any way you want. You just can not actually use the modified libWebKit.so on the iPhone.

If you'll read the actual terms you'll see this little passage: You may not copy (except as expressly permitted by this license and the Usage Rules), decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, modify, or create derivative works of the Licensed Application, any updates, or any part thereof (except as and only to the extent any foregoing restriction is prohibited by applicable law or to the extent as may be permitted by the licensing terms governing use of any open sourced components included with the Licensed Application). This exception is there to make it possible to use LGPL components which allow you to distribute them as long as terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications. Again: you can tweak the LGPL libraries to your heart's content - you just can not install modified versions on iPhone...

Everything is fixed in (L)GPLv3, but as long as people are caught in RDF and think Microsoft is vile villain because it finds and exploits loopholes in (L)GPLv2 but Apple it little darling so it's Ok for it do to the same nothing will change.

There are subtle difference...

Posted Jul 22, 2010 10:31 UTC (Thu) by Aissen (subscriber, #59976) [Link] (3 responses)

It seems you didn't read my comment at all, nor the linked posts.

Again: you can tweak the LGPL libraries to your heart's content - you just can not install modified versions on iPhone...
There you have it.

What we are talking about are the scripts to control compilation and installation of the executable

But you cannot install a modified version, because those tools aren't available. That's what Harald and Kuhn are arguing about.

GPLv3 just made things (much) clearer on this matter. But GPLv2 was indeed addressing the issue (in a much more abstract manner).

Please read my links too...

Posted Jul 22, 2010 15:23 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (2 responses)

Again: you can tweak the LGPL libraries to your heart's content - you just can not install modified versions on iPhone...
There you have it.

Yup.

What we are talking about are the scripts to control compilation and installation of the executable.

Nope. We are talking about scripts used to control compilation and installation of the library. And, more importantly, these scripts don't include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. You'll get the required tools when you'll buy the iPhone SDK - situation is more-or-less the same as with Solaris and Sun's compiler. Emacs was distributed for years pre-compiled for Solaris with Sun's compiler and linked with proprietary library (Motif) and it was never considered a problem - what's so different in the iPhone case?

But you cannot install a modified version, because those tools aren't available. That's what Harald and Kuhn are arguing about.

Sorry, but situation is very different there. They were talking about DroidX, we are talking about iPhone. Tools are available: sign the license and NDA, get the SDK - and off we go. This excuse does not work in DroidX case because that component itself accompanies the executable, but iPhone applications are distributed without iPhone SDK...

GPLv3 just made things (much) clearer on this matter. But GPLv2 was indeed addressing the issue (in a much more abstract manner).

It also included few loopholes and Apple (ab)used them to lock down the device - that's all. The fact that the same people who complained about similar abuse in case of Microsoft<->Novell agreement are content with iOS makes me sick but this says more about our community then about Apple.

Please read my links too...

Posted Jul 22, 2010 16:08 UTC (Thu) by Aissen (subscriber, #59976) [Link] (1 responses)

You'll get the required tools when you'll buy the iPhone SDK - situation is more-or-less the same as with Solaris and Sun's compiler. Emacs was distributed for years pre-compiled for Solaris with Sun's compiler and linked with proprietary library (Motif) and it was never considered a problem - what's so different in the iPhone case?

Because nothing prevented you to install a modified Emacs binary on Solaris, compiled with Sun's compiler and linked with Motif.
In the iPhone case, you could include a modified WebKit created with the iPhone SDK in your app (even if you risk violating the EULA if your app can interpret external scripts), but you can't install a system-wide libWebKit.so, even if you have the iPhone SDK.
So I'm not sure that applies here.

Again, IANAL, and I'm sure there are real loopholes here (hence the decision of the FSF to write a third version).

Also, I fail to see how the argument brought up in the article (section 6 of GPL) doesn't apply to WebKit (section 10 of the LGPL)

The fact that the same people who complained about similar abuse in case of Microsoft<->Novell agreement are content with iOS makes me sick but this says more about our community then about Apple.

Indeed.

There are explicit exception...

Posted Jul 22, 2010 17:22 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Also, I fail to see how the argument brought up in the article (section 6 of GPL) doesn't apply to WebKit (section 10 of the LGPL).

It does. You can pull WebKit from iOS image and do what you want with it. You have all the sources, all the scripts, etc. You can even replace WebKit in your image of iOS (I think open-sources LLVM is enough to recompile WebKit but I may be wrong - and it's not really relevant anyway). You just can not install such image on iPhone without jailbreaking it first - but LGPL does not include such requirements, it explicitly gives your right to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications. Apple's license gives you such permissions - albeit in roundabout form: You may not and you agree not to, or to enable others to, copy (except as expressly permitted by this License), decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, decrypt, modify, or create derivative works of the iPhone Software or any services provided by the iPhone Software, or any part thereof (except as and only to the extent any foregoing restriction is prohibited by applicable law or to the extent as may be permitted by licensing terms governing use of open-sourced components included with the iPhone Software).

Basically Apple says: if you believe LGPL gives you some rights then we are not removing them, just remember that you'll be forced to prove you have these rights: our lawyers are happy to discuss the matter in court any time and if you are wrong... well, there are severe penalties, you know...

Two-week delay

Posted Jul 22, 2010 10:43 UTC (Thu) by RCL (guest, #63264) [Link] (3 responses)

I find it funny that this issue is brought up in subscriber-only area :)

Two-week delay

Posted Jul 22, 2010 21:13 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

If Apple gave you root on their phones after two weeks, then I would consider buying one!

Two-week delay

Posted Jul 31, 2010 17:25 UTC (Sat) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] (1 responses)

Not only did it originate in the subscribers only area (tho it's now not, the point of the two-week delay co-post is taken), but the real irony is that despite all the discussion of software freedom on this site over the years, the software powering it remains closed, despite a long-standing promise to open it "someday" (see the FAQ).

Imagine if, say, Apple or ATI had made the same promise and kept it the same way. Apple could continue to keep its system as closed as it ever was, for a decade or more, until the commercial/practical relevance of the hardware it ran on was long since passed, and Radeon 9200 series hardware would still be the latest with available freedomware drivers...

That's why I remain a non-subscriber, despite the fact that I'd love the convenience of getting in on the original discussions, reply notification, etc, and was loath to drop it. But regardless of how other people run their lives or sites, I found myself increasingly considering myself a hypocrite for talking the talk without walking the walk myself, due to funding this non-freedomware, and however regretfully, found I had to stop. That's been several years ago, now, and while whole other freedomware debates have come and gone (see the Radeon driver situation for example, the xorg/xfree split, and the rise of the whole semi-free phone situation), and despite the years-old promise to open it up "just as soon as", LWN itself continues to operate on software as closed as it ever was. Would the community have accepted that from others? Yet it continues to do so from a very public flagship spokes-site for the Linux and FLOSS community itself.

Oh, well... There's little indication that's likely to change any time soon...

Two-week delay

Posted Jul 31, 2010 17:37 UTC (Sat) by RCL (guest, #63264) [Link]

Yeah... This world is full of compromises and dirty hacks. I support LWN as long as it is more or less aligned with my own interests. But I appreciate your choice and I believe that people should set unfeasible goals in order to achieve something feasible. Cheers.