Hacker News Reader

Comment by yummyfajitas | Hacker News Reader

IANAL, though, so I don't know exactly what Apple is on the hook for.

The GPL applies to anyone who distributes a GPL product. Apple is the distributor.

I am not sure that is going to fly though. Apple is the conduit in this case. The developer is still the distributor and has chosen to do so through the store.

Farmer : producer. Walmart : distributor.

Car manufacturer : producer. Car dealership : distributor.

Software developer : producer. Apple App Store : distributor.

I don't think that scenario holds for the actual "license" and it would just make the GPL suck that much more if you try to hold Apple to something like that.

You're really ignoring the obvious facts in favor of arguments over tiny minutiae. The App Store is a store. Not a conduit, not a dumb pipe, a store. Apple maintains it, Apple choses what to stock there, Apple specifies the terms of purchase and Apple makes a profit off each item it sells there. The developer just gives Apple his app to put in its store.

Analogously to this case, if my local store doesn't refrigerate its milk properly, I don't sue the dairy farmer. Apple's App Store is a store in exactly the same sense.

Your analogy fails miserably.

If your grocery store fails to refrigerate otherwise perfectly good milk, the analogy to the App Store would be that Apple injected GPL code into the app.

No, if Nabisco violates a copyright agreement with the box design of some cookies, and your grocery store sells them (unknowingly), the grocery store is not at fault.

The developer did not place any illegal restrictions on the app. Those are all imposed by Apple's store.

Hm. It would seem that similar logic would apply to, say, an ISP which "distributes" GPL produces over its pipes and applies additional restrictions via its EULA.

This sort of "if you touch GPL in any way" reading isn't a very positive one for copyright in general, and I think it'd be a pretty bad faith argument to make. I think, then, that the FSF's argument must be a more nuanced one; but like pierrefar I can't quite suss out what, exactly, they object to.

The App Store obvious violates the spirit of the GPL in about a dozen ways, but it's unclear to me how the app store violates the letter of the GPL.

Did you read the root post in this thread? Apple is distributing GPL code, and therefore Apple is responsible for providing source. Cut and dry, cannot get any simpler. If you distribute binaries compiled from GPL source, you are required to distribute source. Apple is not distributing source, case closed.

Furthermore, the App store license forbids end-users from redistributing binaries, which again, is a cut and dry violation of the GPL, since it not only says the opposite, but that you must allow them to distribute binaries and source. This isn't an "if you touch GPL in any way" problem. It's a "if you give someone something under the GPL, you must follow the GPL."

Apple is not a dumb pipe. They are hosting the software.

Did you read the root post in this thread?

Why do you need to do this? I'm trying to honestly engage with the ideas presented here, and what's clear to you isn't clear at all to me. Why do you assume I'm operating in bad faith?

Apple is not a dumb pipe. They are hosting the software.

Clearly, and clearly it's an important difference. But I'm not so sure where the legal line is drawn.

What about SourceForge? They have a EULA, right? Have they carefully written one that's compatible with the GPL? Or what about language package hosts like RubyGems, PyPI, or CPAN? Do they need to be careful about any terms and conditions to avoid violating GPL'd apps placed on their repositories?

I'm not a lawyer -- are you? -- and I certainly don't claim to be an expert here. But even if you think I'm an idiot the fact is I actually know quite a good deal about copyright and software licensing, and I still don't see what the FSF's particular legal argument is. And I do want to understand their argument, especially as it applies to other types of "app stores" that might distribute open source code on behalf of other users.

I can see a need to clarify this. A website might easily be little more than an ad-supported clearing-house. It would be little more than a "dumb pipe."

I think there is a certain amount of laugh test failure to the "ISP is distributing too!" argument. I see it as akin to the USPS and FedEx being required to pay royalties to the music companies for distributing the music.

As for what the FSF is arguing, it is that iTunes has a blanket license that limits how many devices you can use the app on, which is pretty much against the part of the GPL that says you can't restrict the license further, or add any additional clauses.

Further, Apple may be required to host the source themselves as intermediary distributors of GPL software (by which I mean make available to additional customers beyond the original authors' reach, not act as a shipping company -- i.e. they are resellers).

I don't think the original author's actually violate the GPL, they provide the source to Apple... and they probably don't restrict the license at all.

I think "common carrier" is the term for ISP's and similar entities that are clearly not responsible for the content that passes through them. I believe this status is defined in the DMCA and other laws. IANAL but this is pretty basic stuff you can research.

In this context, "common carrier" is a legal designation reserved for telecommunications carriers under the Communications Act of 1934. To date, ISPs are specifically not under that broad category, although I'd wager it's simply a question of when, rather than if.

The DMCA relationship you're thinking of is the "safe harbor" provision for ISPs that respond in a proscribed manner to copyright infringement notifications.

Wikipedia link (which is, sadly, very poorly edited right now): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunicatio...

I'm pretty sure that Apple isn't the seller of the programs in the AppStore, the author is, Apple is acting as an agent in the transaction. So in this case, they are the ones that aren't complying with the GPL. In effect, they've broken two agreements, one with the GPL, the other with Apple. Otherwise, that would be like suing Visa for a GPL violation if you bought something from a seller and they didn't give you the source code.

I think that it's been pretty well established by the EFF/FSF/etc that the GPL is largely incompatible with the AppStore, so really, it's the author who should be on the hook for this.

The relevant sections of the App Store ToS: (http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/appstore/us/terms.html)

There are two (2) categories of Products offered through the Service, as follows: (i) those Products that have been developed, and are licensed to you, by Apple (the “Apple Products”); and (ii) those Products that have been developed, and are licensed to you, by a third party developer (the “Third Party Products”).

The Application Provider of each Third Party Product is solely responsible for that Third Party Product, the content therein, any warranties to the extent that such warranties have not been disclaimed, and any claims that you or any other party may have relating to that Third Party Product or your use of that Third Party Product. You acknowledge that you are purchasing the license to each Third Party Product from the Application Provider of that Third Party Product; Apple is acting as agent for the Application Provider in providing each such Third Party Product to you; Apple is not a party to the license between you and the Application Provider with respect to that Third Party Product; and Apple is not responsible for that Third Party Product, the content therein, or any warranties or claims that you or any other party may have relating to that Third Party Product or your use of that Third Party Product.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com