Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 4, 2016 23:09 UTC (Mon) by lsl (subscriber, #86508)
In reply to: Mono Relicensed MIT by Wol
Parent article: Mono Relicensed MIT

> Let's say I develop an app, and use a load of GPL code. I sell the binary on Apple's app store. As per the terms of the GPL, who is liable for providing the source? APPLE!!!

How is that any different from just taking a random proprietary app, change the name on it and upload it to the app store? This happens all the time. Those apps just get deleted as soon as they're noticed or someone complains.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 4, 2016 23:33 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (22 responses)

Sure. It's exactly the same situation.

If Apple were to continue distributing a stolen app then they would be legally liable for up to $150000 per _copy_ distributed. Just like with the GPL.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 7, 2016 13:48 UTC (Thu) by aggelos (subscriber, #41752) [Link] (19 responses)

If Apple were to continue distributing a stolen app then they would be legally liable for up to $150000 per _copy_ distributed. Just like with the GPL.

Eh, you say that as if apple didn't explicitly select to be in that position re: GPL'd programs.

Also, you fail to provide convincing reasons to sympathize with apple when their terms of service take care to restrict the ability of users to copy a _free software application_ to their own devices or to use it for commercial purposes.

On top of the unfounded sympathy for apple's restrictive (some would say exploitative - towards both users and developers) terms, your position carefully avoids sympathizing with the people who made sure to allow the users to arbitrarily run, modify and distribute their code, only to have a mediator impose arbitrary restrictions.

Your narrative above pretends that there's some fear of "OMG so many $$" being awarded as damages for copyright infringement, as if there were some intense GPL litigation going on, whereas there's scarcely any. In fact, for the two cases of someone distributing a piece of copyleft software in the app store that I'm aware of, (GNU Go and an early port of VLC) both were simply removed from the app store and, legally speaking, the matter ended there. So the text quoted above reads as fear-mongering as well.

All in all, I'm afraid this narrative is in need of a leg transplant.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 7, 2016 19:47 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (18 responses)

> Your narrative above pretends that there's some fear of "OMG so many $$" being awarded as damages for copyright infringement, as if there were some intense GPL litigation going on, whereas there's scarcely any.
Correct. However, companies think about maximum potential damages. On one hand there's a possibility of multi-million damages and on the other hand the loss of GPL applications.

Coincidentally, is there any significant amount of non-trivial GPL-ed applications that might be interesting to regular tablet/phone users?

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 7, 2016 23:16 UTC (Thu) by DOT (subscriber, #58786) [Link] (17 responses)

Ah, you're still at it I see. Yes. Take a look at what's available from F-Droid. Especially OsmAnd, IMHO the killer app for Android. Free maps and navigation that works online, *offline* and without sending your every move to some company. It's GPL-3.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 1:32 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (16 responses)

> Especially OsmAnd, IMHO the killer app for Android.
Like Sygic? Or a plethora of other similar applications?

> It's GPL-3.
Of course it is. It would eventually allow authors to charge for a non-free version with more features, while eliminating all the competition.

Proof: https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand/blob/master/LICENSE
> * Pull-requests and translations:
> - All pull requests are accepted under MIT License (most honorable contributors are mentioned in AUTHORS list)

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 1:46 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (15 responses)

http://osmand.net/features?id=contour-lines-plugin - that didn't take long.

GPLv3 preventing abuse of users and non-free plugins?

Yeah, sure.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 7:03 UTC (Fri) by DOT (subscriber, #58786) [Link] (2 responses)

Wow, so now you concede that permissive licensing doesn't protect the user! I guess any argument is fine as long as it can be contorted into an attack on the GPL.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 7:07 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (1 responses)

So you're conceding that your star example of a "GPL killer app" for Android is actually living a secret life as a MIT-licensed base for shareware? And GPL is used in the worst possible way - to allow copyright holders to exploit other contributors without giving them the same benefits?

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 7:23 UTC (Fri) by DOT (subscriber, #58786) [Link]

The default PR license is MIT, no doubt to be able to distribute a proprietary version on iOS. But it is not the only license in the project. Note also that the iOS version is severely limited because it misses out on a lot of code. You were saying?

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 7:47 UTC (Fri) by DOT (subscriber, #58786) [Link] (11 responses)

By the way, this is released as GPL-3: https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdid=net.osmand.sr...

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 8:06 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (10 responses)

Yes, it is indeed released as GPLv3. You can be sure of that, after all it's built by fDroid from source!

And let me quote the relevant part of it (out of the whole 60 lines of code):

>Intent intent = new Intent(Intent.ACTION_VIEW, Uri.parse("market://search?q=pname:" +
> OSMAND_COMPONENT_PLUS));
>try {
> stopService(intent);
> startActivity(intent);
>} catch (ActivityNotFoundException e) {}

The parking and address plugins are similar in content.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 8:25 UTC (Fri) by DOT (subscriber, #58786) [Link] (9 responses)

I haven't investigated the code. What is your argument?

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 8:31 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (8 responses)

These plugins in the fDroid repository are just references to paid closed source plugins on Google Market. There is no actual functionality in the "GPL" version of these plugins.

But be sure, download the source code and check for yourself.

To recap, OsmAnd is just another example of corporate shareware with paid versions providing additional functionality, that uses GPL to prevent other companies from providing competing offers.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 8:36 UTC (Fri) by DOT (subscriber, #58786) [Link]

I'll take your word for it. I guess a fork is in order, if someone is willing to take the time. I don't quite see how a proprietary program is better than an open core program, considering the large open core.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 19:29 UTC (Fri) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (6 responses)

Umm, I have the Contour plugin from F-Droid and it works just fine…

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 19:36 UTC (Fri) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (5 responses)

OK, more misleading content from you (or you're not really grokking that code). That code seems to be looking for OsmAnd itself and opening *it* if you click the plugin from the application drawer (or whatever), the code you reference is to pop up an alert that you need OsmAnd for the plugin to actually work.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:05 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (4 responses)

This is the code of the plugin:
https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand/tree/master/OsmAnd/sr...

It depends on hillshade file, which is not present in the default OsmAnd package. I just downloaded it and checked, again.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:13 UTC (Fri) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (3 responses)

Is there some import that isn't satisfied or are you referring to something like this:

log.info("Indexing hillshade file " + filename);

Hillshade files are available just like any other map: you download the file for the region(s) you're interested in.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:16 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (2 responses)

I don't see it in the UI of the basic version. Will try again...

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:38 UTC (Fri) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (1 responses)

The only difference between the "basic" and the "plus" edition is that the "plus" one is a donation. It's the same code (AFAICT); F-Droid builds the "plus" edition. Maybe they disable the plugins in the "basic" version, but then it's also convenience-ware in that you could build your own "plus" edition, but if you donate some money to them (and Google…), you can use the plugins. Personally, I go through F-Droid. Nothing in the GPL says you have to provide binaries…

In any case, you may need to enable the plugin for contours in the plugin menu to be able to enable the hillshade or contour layers.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 9, 2016 20:22 UTC (Sat) by DOT (subscriber, #58786) [Link]

Yeah, these plugins also seem to work on my phone without paying for it through the Play store. OsmAnd seems to be GPL entirely, and my assumption about their MIT Pull Request policy seems to be correct: it is to please Apple.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 7, 2016 13:58 UTC (Thu) by aggelos (subscriber, #41752) [Link] (1 responses)

If Apple were to continue distributing a stolen app then they would be legally liable for up to $150000 per _copy_ distributed. Just like with the GPL.

Eh, mispaste, the first paragraphs of the previous reply should have been:

I'm wondering if there's some other online forum where you publish polemics on how proprietary software is EVIL because if apple were to distribute it illegally, they would be liable for $150k per COPY distributed :-)

This makes zero sense on so many levels. (a) this $150k number originates from copyright law, the license has got nothing to do with it (b) your narrative isolates and only talks about the license you want to bash (c) your narrative axiomatically assumes that people should _not want_ Apple to be bound by copyright law (copyright law which they're making heavy use of for their profit, one could add).

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 7, 2016 17:56 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

> (a) this $150k number originates from copyright law, the license has got nothing to do with it
Correct.

> (b) your narrative isolates and only talks about the license you want to bash
Incorrect.

> (c) your narrative axiomatically assumes that people should _not want_ Apple to be bound by copyright law (copyright law which they're making heavy use of for their profit, one could add).
Incorrect. I have never advocated violating licenses, I'm advocating avoiding certain licenses for new projects.