Comment by mtvartia | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mtvartia | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

What is ironic or hypocritical about it? There are general licenses which provide more freedom to the users (including limiting freedom of others in derivative works, which might be ironic in somebody's eyes), and this software uses a license which prohibits limiting distribution related freedoms (among others) because its authors wanted it that way. It is not ironic or hypocritical, it is only being consistent with the choice. (Do you mean that using GPL in the first place is ironic or hypocritical in some way?)

If you choose a license and don't follow it, what is the point of using that license?

By using GPL, you deliberately give a piece of software a life of its own. Because of the license, the action taken is not merely the author's decision, but something anyone can do, even if the author didn't wish for it (although it is only natural that the author is the first one to pursue compliance with the license he chose.)

This is not a bad thing for GPL'ed software. Instead, it is exactly what is (or at least should be) expected from using GPL. As said, there are also other licenses to use. If your expectations are different, use different license and don't submit to a license you find inadequate.

Well, ironic in the sense that the GPL is supposed to keep software free (libre), but in this case, it really restricts the end user by not allowing them even to load the app. You have to wonder who was being hurt by having GPL software on the App Store - if you're an actual iPhone developer, then you can most certainly download the source provided by Applidium under the GPL, and build your own copy of the software. If you're a dev that works on other platforms that uses the same GPL code, you can still download the code and use it. If you're not a dev, then you couldn't care less about access to the code or not, because as a non-dev, you can't use it. So just who's rights were being trampled on by the code being on the App Store?

Remi's stance is not principled. Everyone that would want to have access to the source had access to the source. He has done this because of some idealogical dislike that he apparently has of the Apple ecosystem. Fine, it's within his rights, but he doesn't get to claim that he was the principled one in this incident, quite the contrary.

The users would be allowed to load the app, that is not the issue.

The distributor (Apple) is not allowed to impose further restrictions upon GPL'ed software. Surely the users are ultimately the losers, but that is not fault of the creators of the software, but of the distributor (Apple) who likes to keep a stranglehold over its users.

A simple lift on the terms of usage for Apple's service would resolve the issue trivially, even effortlessly. Why do not Apple's customers ask their vendor why this can't be done?

Alternatively, if there was any other way to (trivially, e.g. without jailbreaking) get the application into the device there would not be a problem at all.

IMHO, the FOSS ecosystem built on GPL cannot tolerate and sustain violations towards the license without eroding the meaning of the license. This is the issue of principle, and that is why it makes perfectly sense to stick to the license.

The true irony of the case is in that Apple's customers - even those who know about such great products of the free software ecosystem as VLC - willingly submit to the restrictions of Apple's platform and are surprised not to enjoy the same freedom as those who choose otherwise.

Edit: It seems that the distribution issue has actually been resolved, and the problem has shifted to other GPL-uncompliant restrictions, and ultimately to Apple's own decision to withdraw the app, without discussion.

There is a trivial way to get the application onto the device: pay the $99/year fee to be a developer and re-sign a 'beta' version.

http://www.hogbaysoftware.com/wiki/iOSDeveloperSelfSign

The problem here is that someone has made the assumption that the GNU GPL is permitted to impose restrictions on third parties or platform vendors. It isn't.

What happened here is that someone didn't understand what the GNU GPL does and does not do (and that includes the FSF, IMO) with respect to third-parties and platform vendors.

With all respect, IMO paying 99 dollars a year, getting a developer license and re-signing the application yourself is far from 'trivial'.

That aside, for me it is hard to see how Apple would not be the first-hand distributor for apps in its app store, as it clearly wants to control all distribution from the beginning to the end.

By loosening their stance on this (allowing easy installation of applications by other means) they would position themselves quite differently.

It's trivial. One used to have to pay thousands of dollars for a compiler. On some platforms, you still do, because gcc is substandard on the platform.

The GPL can't impose on third parties.

Is applying for a developer license from Apple really trivial? Is it not possible for Apple to simply not grant the license if they, for example, wish to deprecate a platform?

Do you have, or know a text that provides a proper explanation of 'GPL cannot impose restrictions on third parties', as the license (v2 as in the subject) clearly says:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

What counters the statement "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein"?

Edit: formatting of the cited paragraph.

Apple is acting, more or less, as an FTP site plus an OS vendor in this case. In theory, the GPL can put obligations on the FTP site as a distributor, but it cannot out obligations on the OS vendor.

If this were the case, it would not be possible to ship ANY non-GPL-compatible software on Debian, for example, even in a non-free environment.

The question comes down to what the distribution site does, and they have two clauses: one for commercial and ne for non-commercial interests. They do not seem to be in conflict to me.

(I can only wonder what in my comments has been inappropriate enough to justify the downvotes. Simply disagreeing on a civilized opinion shouldn't prompt censors to act.)

If a distribution site requires to accept a contract between the distributor and the downloader regarding the usage of the downloaded programs, it is not equal to an FTP site which merely puts programs available.

I don't understand how Apple's position as an OS vendor affects the situation, if the question is about distribution. I would really enjoy a thorough explanation about it, if there is one, since to me it does not make any sense.

If there is no conflict (any more) between Apple's terms of usage for downloaded apps and GPL, then it all boils down to Apple's decision to remove the application without reason (other than an invalidated claim of copyright infringement). In that case, all the other GPL'ed software could be returned to distribution.

I can imagine that even Apple's own personnel has hard time following all the changes in their own terms and their implications of cases like this, and that's why it would be the best if Apple simply lifted the restrictions of their platform.

An ideological dislike of something is based on an ideology, which typically includes moral or ethical principles; hence he most likely is taking a principled stance.

What stops you from installing the software on your iPhone? It's not as if the binaries are not available any more.

The GNU GPL does not place obligations on a platform vendor.

If Applidium provides the source (or even re-signable binaries), then anyone with the platform vendor's normal access mechanisms can modify and install on their system. They can even go through the platform vendor's steps required to distribute.

(Yes, you can send re-signable binaries; Jesse Grosjean did this with early versions of PlainText. You only have to pay the access fee of $99/year to install it on your own devices.)

Here, the issue is about usage rights, not redistribution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com