more like "Apple blocks all GPL code from AppStore"
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| gus3 Nov 03, 2010 7:16 PM EDT |
After all, it is Apple refusing to comply with the GPL, not the other way around. |
| bigg Nov 03, 2010 7:33 PM EDT |
Yes, it is common to see such confusion. Similar to, "Linux doesn't support device X, but Windows does" when in fact Linux does support it, but the hardware manufacturer has released drivers only for Windows. |
| KernelShepard Nov 04, 2010 8:45 AM EDT |
Seems like the VideoLAN guys were ok with it being on Apple's AppStore since the company that did the port contributed back their patches and made the complete source package available online. Only a contributor is upset over this issue and filed a request with Apple to take it down which obligates them to take it down if it really does contain any of his copyrighted material. IMHO, while he certainly has the right to complain, he's not really doing the project any favors. We know from past experiences that Apple isn't going to change their licensing terms to comply with the GPL, so we know they'll be forced to take the app down. If the goal is to spread the VLC app to consumers, then it is pretty clear that filing a takedown request with Apple is going to result in consumers not being able to get the product. Who are consumers going to blame? They're going to blame the VLC contributor who filed that take down request and forced Apple to remove it. Apple was perfectly willing to allow it into the AppStore, they don't care if it is GPL or not. All Apple cares about is that having the app in the AppStore doesn't subject them to any legal problems and with that contributor making threats, it's clear to them that it's not worth the risk and no one but anti-Apple people are going to accuse them of being in the wrong. Keep in mind, people, that Apple did not submit the VLC player to their AppStore so it is not them who are choosing to violate the GPL, it is the people who submitted the VLC player who are at fault (even though in this case I believe they did not have any bad intentions). |
| bigg Nov 04, 2010 8:57 AM EDT |
> IMHO, while he certainly has the right to complain, he's not really doing the project any favors. Then the project should be using a different license. > Who are consumers going to blame? Who cares? A FOSS project is a FOSS project. Making FOSS apps proprietary so that more people use them does nothing for free software. It just means there is less reason to use FOSS. |
| gus3 Nov 04, 2010 9:05 AM EDT |
Quoting:Apple did not submit the VLC player to their AppStore so it is not them who are choosing to violate the GPLHow often do we get on people for ignoring the license terms they blindly click "I Accept" on? In this case, it's the reverse: the company ignoring the license terms of their would-be contributors. They got caught with their unclean hands in the GPL cookie jar, so now they're banished from it. |
| JaseP Nov 04, 2010 9:24 AM EDT |
Personally, I could care less if GPL licensed software & the Apple App Store are incompatible. I look at it as more ground for Android & Meego. But then again, I'm not an app developer, looking for the widest possible market. I'd say to Apple users, "Just jail-break your phone/tablet/whatever." |
| KernelShepard Nov 04, 2010 9:27 AM EDT |
gus3: Not true, actually. When a developer submits his/her program to Apple for inclusion in the AppStore, the developer must agree that his app complies with Apple's license agreement. It is not Apple's fault that the app's license was violated. They have to assume that the developer who submits his/her app has the legal right to do so until proven otherwise. bigg & gus3: If you or I were to write our own program (where we own 100% of the copyrights), license it under the GPL, and submit it to Apple, we must agree to Apple's terms. If we agree, then Apple is not in violation of the GPL because we are giving Apple the legal right to distribute it on their own terms, as per our agreement with them. In other words, the project doesn't actually need to change their license if they can get full copyright ownership. The problem, in this case, is that they did not have full copyright ownership. Since this is really about the fact that the submitter of the app didn't have the legal right to do so, it's not even really about the GPL at all. bigg: Also, the VLC app for the iPhone wasn't made proprietary. The source code is still available (did you miss the fact that the company that ported VLC to the iPhone submitted their patches upstream and also made the full source available?). |
| gus3 Nov 04, 2010 9:46 AM EDT |
Quoting:When a developer submits his/her program to Apple for inclusion in the AppStore, the developer must agree that his app complies with Apple's license agreement. It is not Apple's fault that the app's license was violated.The simple solution: distribute the source code for GPL'd programs and LGPL'd libraries through the same distribution mechanism (AppStore). How difficult can that be? Gee, every attempt I make to read the terms is blocked by my not having an Apple ID. |
| bigg Nov 04, 2010 9:57 AM EDT |
@Kernel FTA: "When the App Store terms prohibit commercial use, general distribution, and modification, these are exactly the kinds of "further restrictions" that are not allowed thanks to the last sentence here." If you don't like the use of the term 'proprietary' let me use 'non-free'. In either case there are restrictions, independent of what has been done with the source code. I'm not saying Apple is violating the license, although that is questionable. When you write "If we agree, then Apple is not in violation of the GPL because we are giving Apple the legal right to distribute it on their own terms, as per our agreement with them" I am not going to concede you are correct. Someone who does not own the rights to the code cannot choose to give those rights to Apple. The same as Joe can't give Bob the right to make copies of a movie, and then Bob can claim he's not violating the law when he sells copies of it, because Joe wasn't in a position to give him that right. |
| KernelShepard Nov 04, 2010 10:34 AM EDT |
bigg:Quoting:Someone who does not own the rights to the code cannot choose to give those rights to Apple. With that we agree. I did not mean to suggest otherwise. I only meant to say that if you or I write a program which we own fully and agree to allow Apple to distribute our GPL'd program under their terms, then they are not in violation of the GPL because, essentially, we have agreed to license it under non-GPL terms for them. It's not quite the same as your Joe and Bob example, however, because in the Apple+VLC case, the company that submitted the VLC app to Apple claimed it was theirs to give and signed a contract saying as much, which is a nice little get-out-of-jail-free card for Apple. Apple can really only get into trouble if they continue to distribute after being notified of the copyright infringement. gus3: It can be quite difficult for Apple because the AppStore has no means of distributing source code and so they would have to add infrastructure to support that. That's not likely to happen unless incentive is given to Apple to change. That's also not the part of the GPL that people are complaining was violated afaik (because it can be argued easily that the source code is available via at least VideoLAN's website and the company's website that submitted the app), I thought it was because the binaries get encrypted which means you can't simply copy the binaries from one iPhone to another and expect things to work. Likely this would also require infrastructure changes because iTunes is written such that it encrypts all apps to the devices it installs them to. |
| gus3 Nov 04, 2010 10:50 AM EDT |
So a rooted iPhone/iPad with "objdump" on it, can't dump the object code of VLC because the binary is encrypted? Words fail me. Well, not really, but TOS and all that, you know. |
| KernelShepard Nov 04, 2010 10:54 AM EDT |
bigg & gus3: Let's look at this in another way. Programmer Joe takes some non-GPLv2-compatible source code from somewhere and puts it into his program that he slaps the GPLv2 on. Then one of the Fedora packagers sees this great little GPLv2 program and decides to package it up for inclusion in Fedora 14, which, according to the license provided on the app, they are allowed to do. Okay, now, sometime later, the owners of the code that got stolen become aware that Programmer Joe's app includes their code and complain to Red Hat. Would you complain that Red Hat is evil because it is not complying with the original authors license? Or would you say the blame falls on Programmer Joe? Would you be posting the following message to this forum? Quoting: Subject: more like "Red Hat blocks all XYZ code from Fedora" I doubt it. |
| KernelShepard Nov 04, 2010 10:59 AM EDT |
Quoting:So a rooted iPhone/iPad with "objdump" on it, can't dump the object code of VLC because the binary is encrypted? I'm not 100% sure on that, but I believe so. It is my understanding that all apps are encrypted (to prevent piracy). I don't know the details of how it is accomplished, but I assume encryption of the binary is at least part of it. |
| bigg Nov 04, 2010 10:59 AM EDT |
> the company that submitted the VLC app to Apple claimed it was theirs to give and signed a contract saying as much, which is a nice little get-out-of-jail-free card for Apple Not really. I obviously cannot predict what would happen in a specific court case, but the purpose of my example with Joe and Bob is that yes, Apple is liable, because that 'contract' would be meaningless. Apple could in turn sue the guys that tricked them, but they still didn't have the right to distribute VLC. If you don't believe me, go out on the street selling copies of Windows. When you get arrested, tell them that your friend Joe signed a contract stating that you are free to make and sell copies of Windows. You won't be eating lunch at home that day. |
| bigg Nov 04, 2010 11:02 AM EDT |
> Would you be posting the following message to this forum? It depends. > Would you complain that Red Hat is evil because it is not complying with the original authors license? Or would you say the blame falls on Programmer Joe? I haven't talked about evil or blame. Only that Apple is violating the license. |
| KernelShepard Nov 04, 2010 11:18 AM EDT |
Quoting:Not really. I obviously cannot predict what would happen in a specific court case, but the purpose of my example with Joe and Bob is that yes, Apple is liable, because that 'contract' would be meaningless. Apple could in turn sue the guys that tricked them, but they still didn't have the right to distribute VLC. That's where you are wrong. Yes, the original authors could sue Apple, but the courts would be a lot more lenient with Apple and may even find them "Not Guilty" because of that contract. At the very least, they would not be liable for full damages. I know this because I've been involved with this type of court case in the past and the result was that the plaintiff lost the case with the judge essentially asking why the plaintiff didn't sue the party that stole their code in the first place. |
| KernelShepard Nov 04, 2010 11:28 AM EDT |
I'd also like to point out that bigg's theory would be a massive legal loophole against pawn shops. When you trade something to a pawn shop, there's a reason they ask for proof of ownership (since there's no way to prove ownership of code, Apple covers their ass with an alternative legal document). |
| bigg Nov 04, 2010 11:41 AM EDT |
@Kernel You are saying that I'm wrong but agreeing that Apple might be sued and even be found liable? I guess I don't follow. I said I cannot predict what will happen in a specific court case. Your example is a specific court case. I will again encourage you to go sell copies of Windows on a street corner. Tell them about a contract, proof of ownership, or whatever you want. That will not work. What you are saying might be true in some cases, but you were stating it as a rule, and it is not true in all cases. Rather than continue on with this conversation that is not going anywhere, I will leave it to the rest of you. |
| jdixon Nov 04, 2010 6:57 PM EDT |
> ...but the courts would be a lot more lenient with Apple and may even find them "Not Guilty" That a very big "may" there. I think it's far more likely that Apple would be found guilty of contributory infringement. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!