Apple picks death not compliance for open source iPhone game
theregister.co.uk
theregister.co.uk
Strangely, I don't see any criticism of the app developer. The app developer signed an agreement with Apple and agreed to its terms. They then went on to pick up source code with the GPL2 license.
It seems reasonable to assume that the developer signed two licenses with the full knowledge that they would have to violate one of these licenses.
And who is anybody to say what Apple can or can't do with their brilliant platform that they invested in and worked hard on? Apple is a business, not a religion. They don't want the legal risks, so they cut the app. They don't close up shop or make bad decisions because of vague philosophy from a crusty old engineer and his crusty old beard.
GNU has the copyright ownership over Gnu Go, if they wish they could seal the only saved copy of the source code in a safe and throw it into the sea, it's their software and they can do whatever they want, this includes enforcing the license they released their software under, the same way you can do whatever you want with your software, and I see that you made some great software.
You are indeed correct - GNU can do whatever they want with the software, and what they chose to do in this case was two-fold 1) embarrass Apple and 2) prevent people from using free software.
If anyone is to blame here it is GNU, for choosing philosophy over the utility of people.
I thought about including a paragraph about how GNU handled the case but I just found that it could contribute to a flame war that I have no interest in participate, I'm not a fan of GNU, I do not want to defend GNU or the FSF.
I dont like the pointy and clicky interface (yes I know Darwin is underneath), and since I don't like it I use my PC based HTPC/desktop/laptop at home running Ubuntu and am perfectly fine with it.
Not all companies are going to take the RMS route and make their bread and butter 100% free for anyone to use from day one and think they will be in business for more than a month. I love OSS and everything about it, but I understand the business reasons too and since I just don't like the products that Apple forces me to use, I just dont use them. Capitalism at work right?
"This is why I... sold my Macbook"
oops.
EDIT: And I'm sure that Apple lawyers checked the situation before.
I men come on! If you have an iPhoneOS device, you can just download the software. If you don't, the source code is freely available. How did the FSF's actions protect consumers, or even developers? As far as I can see, it didn't.
I think the FSF is forcing compliance with the spirit of the law. As I understand it, the point of having source code freely available is so that anyone can make modifications, use them, and further distribute them. Not everyone will make modifications, but if everyone cannot, then no-one will.
In the case of the Go app, if you or I obtained the source code, and made modifications for the go pieces to have some marble effect for example, then we could not distribute those changes.
As a side note, I think it is pretty reasonable to require Apple to distribute the source code. It is more likely that the creators of the Go go out of business than Apple, taking their FTP site, or other source code distribution mechanism with them. In which case the burden of distributing source code would fall to Apple. If Apple are not willing to set up a mechanism to distribute source code for apps now, then they would not be willing in the case that an app producer goes out of business. While I wish it were possible to run FOSS on the iPhone, I think t's a sensible business decision for Apple not to undertake this contingent responsibility.
What may happen in the future is that competition from Google commoditizes the App store, and forces Apple to open out the iPhone platform, for example by allowing other people/companies to host their own Apps. In which case a GPL App store may become a possibility.
What ever gave you that idea? Nothing stops you from putting your modified source up somewhere for download, so that people who want to use it can download it, compile it, and install it on their own phones.
More to the point, the GPL was written the way it was for a reason, and the FSF should not be expected to ignore the terms of the GPL just because it'd be inconvenient to Apple. By standing up for their ability to enforce GPL terms, the FSF did directly attempt to protect consumers and developers. At the least, they showed quite well that Apple is not on the side of either the users or the developers.
As someone who has made public GPLv3 code, I am very happy about this. If my users can't send me patches that they've actually tested, they are useless.
"If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information"
The purpose of the anti-Tivoization provisions is to stop hardware vendors from including GPLv3 firmware in their device that they can update but you can't, and it is fairly narrowly tailored to try to accomplish that.
That's right, they could simply add a "unless the license specifically allows you to do so" line, wouldn't cost them much. I wonder how many gpl software there are on the app store.
Chess and Go are not related. They have in common a rectangular board and are played by two players taking turns. That's about it. Saying they are like each other in the grand scheme of things would be like saying that poker and bridge are like each other, because they are both played with cards.