LWN.net Logo

Minutes from the Wesnoth licensing meeting

From:  Rusty Russell <rusty-AT-rustcorp.com.au>
To:  "dev-talk" <wesnoth-dev-AT-gna.org>
Subject:  Minutes of IRC Licencing Meeting
Date:  Wed, 4 Aug 2010 11:48:29 +0930
Message-ID:  <201008041148.30079.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Archive-link:  Article, Thread

On Sunday August 1st, at 16:00 UTC the Wesnoth developers met on
Internet Relay Chat to discuss their attitudes towards (and possible
responses to) the licensing questions raised about sale via Apple's
App Store.

Summary:

The atmosphere was positive and constructive, and we all gained a
better understanding of each others' concerns, but the differences are
significant and we are did not reach a conclusion.

Proposals will be culled from the logs and posted separately for
evaluation and discussions leading to a follow up meeting.

Thanks to all who attended and contributed (as always!).

Details:

Noy chaired and coordinated the flow of topics.  We started by asking
everyone's motivations for contributing, and a few cherished moments
in their personal experience with Wesnoth.

The most common motivation was how great the game itself was; at least
9 people mentioned that.  Seven people praised the excellent Wesnoth
community.  Sharing or contributing was mentioned by four people, and
Open Source / Freedom was noted by five.  4 indicated they found it
fun :)

The point was generally agreed that this meeting was about where our
boundaries are, and not specifically about Apple; other platforms we
are considering present similar issues.  Android (with AT&T's apparent
removal of the "allow third party apps" button) and PalmOS were
specifically mentioned as imminent porting targets.

There was a proposal to change the iPhone port from a $5 app to a "pay
what you want" model (this is as close to donations as Apple allow),
to at least alleviate some of the most obvious access restriction.
There was a fair bit of support for this.

There was a proposal to make a build available for jailbroken devices,
eg. on Cydia.  The question was then whether this was pointless if the
app was made freely available via Apple anyway.  (The legality and
ease of jailbreaking was discussed, and the question of whether
"voiding the warranty" was real, but we got back on track.)

It was proposed that we emphasize the community "world-wide volunteer
contributor nature" on the app store and in the game, to grow
community and contributors.  This seemed fairly uncontentious.

It was also proposed that we add an in-game donate (or Pay What You
Want) on all platforms, now we have found a use for money.  It was
noted that a previous donate button on the web site was very little
used, however and has been removed

Things got a little scattered again, with discussion of the legalities
of licensing and violation and compiling apps for a jailbroken phone,
Apple's Terms of Service and some wise statements about why it's more
important to know firstly what we want before worrying about what the
law or licenses say.

Two proposals were then raised: that the code always be available, and
that a "howto compile" document be kept to ensure that it be as simple
as possible to make Wesnoth for such devices (presumbly jailbroken).
This was generally well-received as a baseline requirement, at least.

In the context of potential loss of users, it was noted that although
an estimated 10% of the userbase were on these devices, most of them
likely have another supported platform: one popular recent feature is
the ability to transfer saved games to Windows/MacOS.

Ad-hoc version releases were discussed (limited to 50 users and 100
versions per $99 developer license), but generally dismissed in favor
of jailbreaking as a preferred non-AppStore distribution method for
people to contribute and modify their code.

A suggestion was made that even within the closed system, the app
itself could be made more hackable, particularly the WML which
describes scenarios.  Some developers didn't know that currently even
this modification is not possible.  There was little followup
discussion on this point, but what there was was supportive.
(Discussion wandered again into the exact details of jailbreaking,
warranty and non-AppStore apps and developer licenses.)

It was proposed that a second license be crafted for Apple's AppStore
(and possibly other platforms).  

It was proposed that the GPL remain, and we provide an alternate
version for jailbroken phones with easy to find instructions on
wesnoth.org on how to jailbreak/install, and we set up a 'pay what you
want' system for all platforms with a competent presentation
(i.e. Humble Indie Bundle-style).

It was proposed that "if you sell on a closed deviced, you must share
your revenues (X%) w/ Wesnoth", for some definition of closed.  No
comments on this proposal

It was proposed (again) that we should make license-questionable
platforms less attractive than fully compliant ones.  There was some
support, but concerns about "punishing users on their device choice",
and unanswered questions about how exactly it would be done, such as a
one-version delay for the app store.

Towards the end it was proposed that on non-jailbroken phones, Apple
takes 30% of your gold at the end of every scenario :)  That helped
close out the discussion.

It was agreed that we would meet again.

Attendance (those who spoke during the meeting, thus appeared in my logs):

alink
cjhopman_
eleazar_
freim
grzywacz
ilor
Ivanovic
KylePoole
mordante
noy
Noyga
rusty
shadowmaster
silene
Sirp
timotei
YogiHH
zookeeper

Late arrivals:
boucman
gabba
Sapient


(Log in to post comments)

Minutes from the Wesnoth licensing meeting

Posted Aug 4, 2010 14:31 UTC (Wed) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]

FWIW, you can still install anything you want on an AT&T android phone as long as you connect it to a computer.

It's not entirely clear whether that's was simply overlooked by AT&T or if it was intentionally left in, however.

Minutes from the Wesnoth licensing meeting

Posted Aug 4, 2010 17:05 UTC (Wed) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link]

As far as I can see it's not explicitly stated here, but would it be safe to say that there's an acceptance that the GPL isn't suitable for the App store, and that there'll need to be a relicensing/dual licensing effort?

Minutes from the Wesnoth licensing meeting

Posted Aug 4, 2010 21:38 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]

We need to come to terms with that in a general sense. There are multiple GPL codes in the iphone app store. All of them most likely in violation of a contributor's copyright.

The only GPL codes which are safe are potentially ones that require copyright assignment to a single entity. And only safe insofar as that single copyright holding enty refrains from perusing license violators. Such codes present real risks to potential redistributors of the code who would like to use such GPL code as the basis of a new application. If you ever fork the code and produce your own implementation the original copyright holder could request you take it down from the App store as a GPL violation even though their version of the codebase won't need to come down.

We are all going to have to learn to be exceedingly careful when it comes to writing iOS applications because of the way Apple's developer agreement interacts with GPL licensing for code written by others that we want to reuse. It would actually be easier if Apple just completely forbid GPL licensed code. so we wouldn't have to deal with the complication of differentiating single entity copyright holders using GPL'd code from projects with contributed GPL code with multiple copyright owners.

-jef
-jef

Minutes from the Wesnoth licensing meeting

Posted Aug 4, 2010 22:30 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

Insightful comment, on the last para particularly.

Minor nits: it doesn't have to be a single entity, the rights holders just have to share the same opinion; it doesn't depend on the rights holder(s) refraining for ever, able to pounce at any time - they can simply tell people "we're not going to sue for app store distribution, under these conditions" and estop themselves from ever being able to sue anyone - i.e. effectively give an exception.

Minutes from the Wesnoth licensing meeting

Posted Aug 4, 2010 22:36 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]

right... _if_ there is a documented exception. But people have to actually put that exception in which effectively ends up being GPL+exceptions. We've seen that in other contexts before. For example the Liberation fonts Red Hat had released a few years back..GPL with an additional exception clause which take into account the practical realities of how fonts are used.

But the point is right now the needed exception for Apple's developer rules..is not happening... not even for completely original code under under the copyright assignment control of a single vendor. I could point out one particular high profile App that was recently announced that is AGPL and owned by a single copyright owner, without such an exception... but I don't want to single out that one app unfairly when its a general problem that is not being addressed.

-jef

Minutes from the Wesnoth licensing meeting

Posted Aug 4, 2010 23:14 UTC (Wed) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link]

...would it be safe to say that there's an acceptance that the GPL isn't suitable for the App store

The FSF discusses GPL and Apple App Store Terms of Service here:
GPL Enforcement in Apple's App Store
More about the App Store GPL Enforcement

The basic issue is that the GPL says

You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License.

and the App Store ToS applies exactly the freedom-limiting "further restrictions" that this clause of the GPL was intended to prevent.

Minutes from the Wesnoth licensing meeting

Posted Aug 5, 2010 0:51 UTC (Thu) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]

Why do people think that because the GPL forbids further restrictions that somehow that means the developers are punishing purchasers? Apples' terms are the problem, not the GPL. This is being framed by certain people as a problem with the GPL and it's not. It's a problem with Apple and their restrictive policies.

Apple has made a concerted effort and conscious decision to prevent any application developed for their phone to be freely shared. They have done this to restrict all competition and to prevent alternatives to their own app store. What Apple is doing is WRONG. Why on earth would anyone want to validate Apples' approach and restrictive licensing? Apple has complete say on what applications you run. If Microsoft or anyone else had such control over your computer and the ability and willingness to delete remotely applications they have not approved the world would be in an uproar. Apple on the other hand is adored for being anticompetitive, restrictive and downright wrong.

That I will never understand, nor will I understand any developer of FOSS software choosing to embrace and Validate this evil/wrong methodology of business. In almost all aspects of their business Apple seeks to create monopolies and prevent competition. IMO they are an evil business unworthy of the support of the FOSS community. Just my opinion.

Minutes from the Wesnoth licensing meeting

Posted Aug 5, 2010 2:25 UTC (Thu) by rusty (✭ supporter ✭, #26) [Link]

> Why do people think that because the GPL forbids further restrictions that
> somehow that means the developers are punishing purchasers?

Good question, but it doesn't really matter why. I don't think iPhone/iPad users are unbiased in their assessment of Apple and their policies and if we withdraw the app, they'll blame us. That's unfortunately where we are :(

I want to persuade people that Freedom is important. We can't do that just using sticks, but can we be more nuanced and ... subversive? And there's value in not being the bad guy, even when you are Right.

Cheers,
Rusty.

Minutes from the Wesnoth licensing meeting

Posted Aug 5, 2010 13:13 UTC (Thu) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]

I want to persuade people that Freedom is important. We can't do that just using sticks, but can we be more nuanced and ... subversive?

That's what the jailbreaking community is all about.

And there's value in not being the bad guy, even when you are Right.

People offering GPL-licensed software are not being the "bad guys". It's the likes of Apple who will sell you something, taking a not insignificant sum of money in the process, who then tell you what you can and cannot do with it that are the "bad guys". If various corporations completely had their way, you wouldn't own anything: all that stuff would merely be "yours" on loan and under threat of confiscation at any time.

People who criticise the GPL instead of the draconian contracts which actually cause the observed problems are either apologists for the agenda of various corporations who would control every aspect of their products' usage and users, or are so obsessed with having the latest gadgetry that they would jettison any principles just to have such gadgetry delivered to their impatient hands in a timely and frequent fashion.

Minutes from the Wesnoth licensing meeting

Posted Aug 6, 2010 13:00 UTC (Fri) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link]

> I want to persuade people that Freedom is important. We can't do that
> just using sticks, but can we be more nuanced and ... subversive?

I definitely understand the idea of giving people Free (Libre) stuff and using that as an entre to educate them: that's a time-tested and honored method even by the FSF, which supported migrating free software to Windows, etc. for exactly this reason.

However, I don't really see any way that providing this software for the Apple app store helps the free software agenda. How are we showing people that Freedom is important, by simply capitulating completely to the onerous Apple licensing agreement? There's no instruction or education going on there that I can see. Yes they got some free (beer) stuff... but do they have any opportunity to learn why Free (libre) is better, and how their rights are being infringed by Apple's licensing, and why they should care?

I'm not a Wesnoth developer, or even a player, and I don't own a smart phone of any description, so I have no dogs in this fight whatsoever. I'm just wondering what the benefit is to Free Software to allow this?

Minutes from the Wesnoth licensing meeting

Posted Aug 7, 2010 2:12 UTC (Sat) by rusty (✭ supporter ✭, #26) [Link]

> I'm just wondering what the benefit is to Free Software to allow this?

Remember that it already exists, has for some months, and has been wildly popular.

I could send a complaint to Apple and get the app taken off the App Store. This causes an acrimonious split in the Wesnoth team since most are generally in favor of the port. They rewrite all my code (and maybe a handful of others'), and probably change the license to make sure it never happens again.

So in a few months, all staunch GPL defenders have been left the project, the iPhone/iPad users have been annoyed, and a strong anti-Freedom feeling has been instilled for "making work for everyone".

I hope that clarifies what we're facing?
Rusty.

Minutes from the Wesnoth licensing meeting

Posted Aug 7, 2010 7:57 UTC (Sat) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link]

In favor of the port i can see that BUT why the need to change the license just to suit that idiot jobs and his schemes if they want wesnoth then by all means yes but not to change the license PS i have no connection with either camp i just play the game on Linux and think apple need a biog knock down in stature

Minutes from the Wesnoth licensing meeting

Posted Aug 7, 2010 14:19 UTC (Sat) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link]

Sorry, I think I wasn't clear. As I said I have no dog in this fight and I really don't have an opinion on what the right answer is: I definitely see the difficult choices that have to be made and sympathize with both sides.

I'm saying only this: I do not believe the argument in the post I replied to. My understanding of that argument was that providing Free software in this case is a good thing because it uses "carrots" (rather than sticks) to persuade people that Free software is important to them. I am simply saying I don't see any evidence that this is true. People will download the app and use the app: it will be free (beer) and they will be happy about that, I'm sure, but how does that advance the cause of or influence anyone to care about (or even realize there is such a thing as) Free (libre) software?

There may be very good reasons to allow the app even though it cannot be distributed in a way that satisfies the GPL. I just don't think this is a legitimate one.

Minutes from the Wesnoth licensing meeting

Posted Aug 5, 2010 7:16 UTC (Thu) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link]

Forgive me but

Why should the GPL be munged and messed with just to suit the makers of a very over rated device and their strange concoction called an app store (stupid name) .

It is time the GPL bit back and said on yer bike this IS the license end of and if idevice users dont like it well they know who to start barraking to get things changed and Mr Jobs is as good a starting point as any

Copyright © 2010, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds