| |||||||||||||
There are subtle difference...There are subtle difference...Posted Jul 22, 2010 10:31 UTC (Thu) by Aissen (subscriber, #59976)In reply to: There are subtle difference... by khim Parent article: Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities
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... 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).
(Log in to post comments)
Please read my links too... Posted Jul 22, 2010 15:23 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Again: you can tweak the LGPL libraries to your heart's content - you just can not install modified versions on iPhone... 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] 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 scriptsÂ…), 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...
|
|||||||||||||