Hacker News Reader

Comment by pbhjpbhj | Hacker News Reader

> it has a restrictive 14 page license attached to it that you must agree to to use it //

That you're supposed to agree to. What proportion of the users of Xcode do you suppose have even read that license?

Also the license doesn't prevent you using it, though it possibly prevents you from legally using it for commercial purposes in most developed nations.

With the recent case concerning sending data abroad to process to circumvent patent restrictions it seems that f.lux could just have someone in a country with no copyright/license restrictions download Xcode, compile and make available the software. Apple Computers after all wouldn't own code created with Xcode, which would be a technical rather than artistic work anyhow, so there doesn't appear to be a problem of copyright.

Apple could likely still pull strings that the f.lux people wouldn't find helpful however (maybe the devs have other apps that Apple could block, for example).

View on HN

I am not sure what you mean by 'supposed to' agree to the license. You are correct in that the license doesn't self-enforce, but legally you have agreed to follow the license when you download the code. So, Apple can take legal action to enforce compliance with the license, which is what they did whey they sent a C&D notice to f.lux.

A license can restrict non-commercial purposes, too (as long as they aren't purposes protected by law, e.g. fair use). While it is true that most companies only go after license violators who are using the software for commercial purposes, that is only for practical reasons, not legal.

>but legally you have agreed to follow the license //

I'd say "are bound by the license" - however if you download Xcode from the app store do you get "adequate notice" of the browse-wrap license?

Can't personally inspect the license from https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewEula?... as it redirects saying one needs the Mac App Store to do that.

A license can restrict use, but copyright concerns copying. They allow copying of the code, which is necessary for use, but attempt to acquire acquiescence to their license terms. I'm not sure however as there is no consideration how users can be considered to be under license. In short if the copying is fair-use, which it looks like it reasonably could be, then how can the use be controlled?

The first time you start Xcode you have to agree to a license or it won't open. So, that is the time you make the deal, or, sell your soul.

What if they, hypothetically, developed their code with a separate toolchain/IDE and didn't use xcode at all? Are they still bound by the terms of it, or is it the users compiling the app to put on their phones bound by it? I'm also pretty sure advocating people violate a license agreement isn't illegal, or did Apple get an exemption for the first amendment?

I realize f.lux was distributing a compiled binary instead of telling people to compile it from source, but I think Apple would have sent them a C&D just the same if it were just source.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com