Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Posted Apr 4, 2016 20:32 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)In reply to: Mono Relicensed MIT by krake
Parent article: Mono Relicensed MIT
If it includes 'GPL' in it, then quite probably yes.
Note, that I don't argue that authors are not free to make bad choices.
Posted Apr 5, 2016 7:33 UTC (Tue)
by krake (guest, #55996)
[Link] (6 responses)
That at least gives it more perspective.
I guess that is a valid philosphy, but others will still believe that caring for the users is also valid.
Posted Apr 5, 2016 7:37 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (5 responses)
Why not release your code as Apache2 or BSD and help real-life users instead?
Posted Apr 5, 2016 8:03 UTC (Tue)
by krake (guest, #55996)
[Link] (4 responses)
But if I were, the best option would probably be to license the software as GPL in general, but upload the app with some simple proprietary license that allows the user to treat the software as licensed under GPL on their choice.
Then the app's license is proprietary as far as Apple is concerned and GPL as far as any user who wants that is concerned.
Posted Apr 5, 2016 8:12 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (2 responses)
> But if I were, the best option would probably be to license the software as GPL in general, but upload the app with some simple proprietary license that allows the user to treat the software as licensed under GPL on their choice.
Posted Apr 5, 2016 8:55 UTC (Tue)
by krake (guest, #55996)
[Link] (1 responses)
Wow, really? Can you provide a link? All I could find yesterday were some articles that claimed sime restrictions imposed by the app store would somehow be a problem, but nothing as concrete.
At least that should put all questions at rest which side is at fault, such an explicit rule makes it clear that it is the app store.
> A user will be able to get a GPL-ed source but won't be able to distribute it or even use it, except by paying Apple and putting their own devices in developer mode.
I am afraid I don't understand where you are seeing any problem there.
For using source you need to either be a developer or have easy enough to follow instructions, but that is a property of source code, not of the source code's license.
Also not entirely sure what you mean with the last part but my guess is you are referring that deploying a modified version onto an iOS device would require Apple's development tools and a device that allows out-of-store installation.
Posted Apr 5, 2016 15:14 UTC (Tue)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link]
Posted Apr 5, 2016 15:13 UTC (Tue)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link]
Mono Relicensed MIT
A license in favor of the user is bad, licenses or store restrictions against the user are good or at least not as bad.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT
It's spelled out quite explicitly in the Apple developer agreement.
Even better. A user will be able to get a GPL-ed source but won't be able to distribute it or even use it, except by paying Apple and putting their own devices in developer mode.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Anyone with access to a GPL-ed source can distribute it, e.g. putting it on a digital media and given that to someone, or uploading it to a server.
In that case I also don't see how using e.g. a BSD licensed source would not also require that. Again a property of having access to a programs source, independent of the source's license.
We solved it this way.
Mono Relicensed MIT
Mono Relicensed MIT