Hacker News Reader

Comment by rbanffy | Hacker News Reader

IIRC, it's not Apple who forbids GPL-licensed apps, but GPL that forbids distributing apps under Apple's rules.

edit: Apparently, I was less than clear. The GPL has always forbidden distributing GPL'ed apps under Apple's (and not only Apple's) rules, since well before their app store existed.

View on HN

It's more accurate to say that Apple's rules are mutually incompatible with the GPL. Neither explicitly calls out the other. It just happens that it's impossible to follow both sets of rules simultaneously.

If I cared to blame someone for this, it would be Apple, as the GPL predates the App Store. It really doesn't make sense to specifically blame anyone, though. You just have two sets of rules that are mutually incompatible. Just note the consequence and be done with it.

Of course. Apple could have made the rules to accommodate GPL'ed apps, but they didn't. I am very curious as to what the exact terms will be in order to allow GPL'ed apps on the MS store.

This has already been discussed at length, the reason Apple's Appstore terms is incompatible with GPL is because the 'App Store' restricts the number of copies you can make of the downloaded binary while GPL explicitly allows you to make as many copies as you want.

Microsoft's store allows GPL software (and other open source) by simply saying that when it comes to open source software the oss licence will take precedence over Microsoft's own licence terms.

Good. That's a simple and elegant solution.

Right. The Android Market works the same way.

The problem with Apple's App Store rules is that it's their way or the highway. There is no way to grant your users more freedom than the App Store does.

This, coupled with the fact that you can't install apps other than from the App Store on an iPhone (without jailbreaking your phone or paying extra money to be a developer and building them yourself), is why I will never own an iPhone (at least until they fix those problems).

Very well said an excellent explanation.

Though it might also be pointed out that in addition to the GPL predating the App store, it would be reasonably simple for Apple to modify its policies to be compatible with the GPL, while it would take a fundamental change in what the GPL means for the GPL to work with the current App Store policies.

Well, you certainly managed to bend your mind to make Apple the good guy.

GPL: You have the right to modify and redistribute the application.

Apple: No you don't.

rbanffy: The GPL forbids redistribution.

Apple restricts you to 5 devices, the GPL does not. Apple restricts you to personal, non commercial use, the GPL does not.

When has Apple restricted the right to modify and redistribute a GPL application?

Although Apple's app stores don't have provisions for distributing source, they don't do anything to stop the source of a developer's app being posted for modifications or redist.

I'd love to see some examples of your claims.

http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html

(i) If you are an individual acting in your personal capacity, you may download and sync an App Store Product for personal, noncommercial use on any iOS Device you own or control. and it keeps going.

Fanboys coming out saying it isn't apple adding restrictions. What a joke. If I acquire an application through the app store then Apple restricts my usage.

That’s some selective quoting right there. The terms for commercial use are right under what you are quoting and virtually identical to the terms for non-commercial use.

See also my other comment where I still assumed that you made a mistake and were not selectively quoting: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3344535

Not taking issue here with commercial vs personal, but with being restricted from redistributing items you've purchased through the store.

You are right. I’m sorry, I put that comment in the wrong context.

But the App Stores allows you to install apps on as many Macs or iOS devices you want (as long as you own or control them) and it also allows for commercial use (also by companies and organizations).

Yeah, my bad for not being clear. You are right and I am right and I am wrong. So everyone wins!

Not debating the other points but Apple doesn't restrict you to non-commercial use, they only disclaim any liability for commercial damages. Otherwise we'd all be pirates.

(i) You shall be authorized to use iTunes Products only for personal, noncommercial use.

Is the first restriction listed at http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html

I'm no hyperchicken, so don't put much stock in what I have to say.

You seem to be quoting the terms for the iTunes Store. The terms are confusing (because they throw all their various Stores and their different terms in one long document), so quoting the wrong part of the terms is hardly your fault.

The Mac App Store seems to have different terms for non-commercial and commercial use. Here are the terms for non-commercial use:

If you are an individual acting in your personal capacity, you may download and use an application from the Mac App Store (“Mac App Store Product”) for personal, non-commercial use on any Apple-branded products running Mac OS X (“Mac Computer”) that you own or control.

tl;dr: If you are not an enterprise, you can download apps for non-commercial use and install them on all Macs you own or control.

Here are the terms for commercial use:

If you are a commercial enterprise or educational institution, you may download a Mac App Store Product for use by either (a) a single individual on each of the Mac Computer(s) used by that individual that you own or control or (b) multiple individuals on a single shared Mac Computer that you own or control. For example, a single employee may use a Mac App Store Product on both the employee’s desktop Mac Computer and laptop Mac Computer, or multiple students may serially use a Mac App Store Product on a single Mac Computer located at a resource center or library. For the sake of clarity, each Mac Computer used serially by multiple users requires a separate license.

tl;dr: If you are an enterprise, you can download apps for commercial use and install them on all Macs you own and control as long as those Macs are also only used by a single person. You can alternatively install the app on a single Mac that is used by several people.

The terms are the same for commercial and non-commercial use, the only difference is that companies can also use their license as a single-Mac license (which can be used by as many people as they want).

You are completely correct.

I meant commercial as interpreted in relation to the GPL and I know that I came across as incredibly unclear. I read those terms as giving both individual and corporate customers the same license to use the software but explicitly prevents redistribution.

You can resell GPL software. You cannot resell App store software.

> rbanffy: The GPL forbids redistribution.

I can't fathom how you managed to misinterpret my post so badly, but, for your benefit, "The GPL prohibits distribution under Apple's freedom-limiting terms".

Satisfied?

GPL existed before the app store came around, and Apple did not design their terms to accomodate the GPL.

Yeah, won't readings of the GPL forbid distribution for the same reasons? Or are the apps distributed by Windows 8 going to be unsigned? Or is that not pertinent in this case?

It can be construed as either way, but the face that there were tens of thousands of programs and libraries under the GPL when the App Store guidelines were released, it leans towards saying that Apple banned GPL'ed apps from the App Store.

If the FSF had modified the GPL to exclude the App Store, then you'd be more correct.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com