LWN: Comments on "Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities"

Two-week delay

RCL — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:37:18 +0000

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.

Two-week delay

Duncan — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:25:48 +0000

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...

Port to Android

Linegod — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 01:52:50 +0000

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

rusty — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 07:23:18 +0000

> 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

SapientX — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 05:08:32 +0000

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

Zenith — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:31:25 +0000

"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

roelofs — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:56:27 +0000

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.

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

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

dlang — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:16:14 +0000

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

jmorris42 — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:14:27 +0000

> 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.

Two-week delay

man_ls — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:13:52 +0000

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

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

ewan — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:26:01 +0000

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?

There are explicit exception...

khim — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:22:33 +0000

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...

Please read my links too...

Aissen — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:08:29 +0000

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.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Trelane — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:48:42 +0000

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

Trelane — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:45:07 +0000

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.)

Please read my links too...

khim — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:23:13 +0000

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.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

kh — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:29:32 +0000

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

Port to Android

Cato — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:46:33 +0000

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

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

nix — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:54:16 +0000

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

Two-week delay

RCL — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:43:05 +0000

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

There are subtle difference...

Aissen — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:31:05 +0000

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).

There are subtle difference...

khim — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:22:43 +0000

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.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Aissen — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:00:27 +0000

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.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

arctanx — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:09:11 +0000

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

nix — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:03:33 +0000

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

djao — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 07:52:05 +0000

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

vadim — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 07:21:38 +0000

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

arctanx — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 07:21:07 +0000

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

Felix.Braun — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 07:17:17 +0000

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

Felix.Braun — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 07:05:18 +0000

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.

Port to Android

Cato — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:20:44 +0000

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%.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

pabs — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:16:36 +0000

Don't forget us poor OpenMoko users :)

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

jake — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:22:10 +0000

> 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

KylePoole — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:08:16 +0000

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

djao — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:07:24 +0000

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

PaulWay — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:47:08 +0000

"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

foom — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:24:15 +0000

So distribute it for Cydia.

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

rahvin — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:09:04 +0000

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

rahvin — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:19:03 +0000

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

kunitz — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:20:17 +0000

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.