Apple removed GNU Go from the Apple Store

[McRat]

These types of discussions would make a lot more sense if the proper nouns were changed.

When the term Microsoft or Apple comes up in anything that involves intellectual property, opinions seem to change.


Let's say you are a programmer who feeds their family by selling custom code. You do not permit resale of your custom code. You will supply the customer with source though.

You are probably going to use libraries and snippets from many other past programs you've written. Some were pieces of GPL, most aren't.

If I understand this situation right, you could be sued by the "Free Software" people if any of the code was derived from a GPL product.


And who is to say that all GPL stuff is 100% original content with no Prior Art components that weren't GPL?


I personally see no problem with people who sell "free" software. It is up to the buyer to determine whether Product X1 is worth $20 to them. If they believe $20 is a good exchange for access to X1, then why should anyone care?

[saulgoode]

I think the point is that the FSF has intentionally made this a big deal so they could point fingers at Apple. This was a media stunt.

How did the FSF make this a big deal? By posting an announcement of the action on their own website's News page? I suppose that could be considered nontraditional, but then their License Compliance Engineer admits as much and offers the following explanation:

The only thing we're doing differently is making this announcement. Apple has a proven track record of blocking or disappearing programs from the App Store without explanation. So we want to provide everyone with these details about the case before that happens, and prevent any wild speculation.

Personally, I don't view such openness and transparency as a bad thing; nor do I view it as a "media stunt". In fact, taken at face value it is an effort to avoid the issue becoming overblown in the media. At worst, it is the FSF using their website's News page for its intended purpose.

[phrostbyte]

These types of discussions would make a lot more sense if the proper nouns were changed.

When the term Microsoft or Apple comes up in anything that involves intellectual property, opinions seem to change.


Let's say you are a programmer who feeds their family by selling custom code. You do not permit resale of your custom code. You will supply the customer with source though.

You are probably going to use libraries and snippets from many other past programs you've written. Some were pieces of GPL, most aren't.

If I understand this situation right, you could be sued by the "Free Software" people if any of the code was derived from a GPL product.


And who is to say that all GPL stuff is 100% original content with no Prior Art components that weren't GPL?


I personally see no problem with people who sell "free" software. It is up to the buyer to determine whether Product X1 is worth $20 to them. If they believe $20 is a good exchange for access to X1, then why should anyone care?

That restriction ("no resell") would disqualify it under the Open Source Definition. It would also violate the GPL, since GPL requires no restrictions on distribution.

The GPL is a license and like any license you have to follow it and if not you are committing copyright infringement. It is within an author's right to pick what terms to license his products under!

AFAIK nobody holds guns to peoples heads on this issue, and forces them to use software under terms they don't like. I don't think Microsoft is even doing this (yet?).

[jwbrase]

I personally see no problem with people who sell "free" software. It is up to the buyer to determine whether Product X1 is worth $20 to them. If they believe $20 is a good exchange for access to X1, then why should anyone care?

The problem is not that they were selling it: The GPL allows the sale of GPL'ed software. The problem is that they distributed it under a license more strict than the GPL, which is something the GPL does not allow.

Now, the question is, who uploaded/submitted/whatevered it to the app store? The FSF? Apple themselves? A third party?

If it was a third party, then the FSF was within their rights to call Apple on it, but Apple did no wrong (aside, perhaps, depending on how their approval procedure works, from lax approval). The third party, I would imagine, would then potentially be liable to both the FSF and Apple. To the FSF for infringing FSF copyright by uploading it and allowing it to be licensed under Apple's licensing terms when those terms are incompatible with the GPL, and to Apple for uploading stuff that they didn't have permission to upload and that could not be licensed under Apple's licensing terms.

If the FSF uploaded it, then it smells like they were just aiming for a publicity stunt or "sting" type operation. (Upload, then if Apple accepts, sue them for accepting).

If Apple uploaded it, then they took GPL'ed software and released it under a more restrictive license, and the FSF has every right to sue them.

[mickie.kext]

If I understand this situation right, you could be sued by the "Free Software" people if any of the code was derived from a GPL product.

Umm... no, you do not understand it right. You can not be sued by "Free Softwre people" for your code. If you write your app all by yourself, and release it under GPL, then GPL applies to other people but not to you. And if other people violate, you enforce GPL and you sue, not the "Free software people". It is up to copyright holder to enforce GPL. If you are not a business, and you do not make revenues from software, you can ask Software Freedom Law Center for pro-bono legal services, though.

It this Apple case, copyright holder is FSF. That is why issue is between FSF and Apple and not between some_guy and Apple.

And who is to say that all GPL stuff is 100% original content with no Prior Art components that weren't GPL?

By copyright law (and DCMCA too), you and every distributer and contributor are required to write down names of copyright holders in COPYRIGHT or COPYING or LEGAL or something like that file in source code of the program. Those who are listed there are the copyright holders.

I do not understand part about Prior Art. That term is used for patents. Copyright only applies on copying. If you write program which is line for line same as, say Photoshop, and you can prove that you never had access to Photoshop source code, that means that you did not copied it. You made it up by yourself. And you are in the clear. (But fat chance that someone can do that, it is next to impossible to write same code as much smaller software project, let alone photoshop)

Patent work very different than that, they do not have anyting to do with copying or source code, and all to do with abstract ideas. But we are not talking about patents here.

I personally see no problem with people who sell "free" software. It is up to the buyer to determine whether Product X1 is worth $20 to them. If they believe $20 is a good exchange for access to X1, then why should anyone care?

There is no problem at all with charging with GPL'd softwre. You can see for example how Red Hat is doing it.

But Apple is not doing that. They just resell other people's software and put their licensing terms on top of it, removing original license. Those who write their own apps can agree to that, those who port other people software can not because they are not the ones to agree.

[Dr. C]

The problem is not that they were selling it: The GPL allows the sale of GPL'ed software. The problem is that they distributed it under a license more strict than the GPL, which is something the GPL does not allow.

Now, the question is, who uploaded/submitted/whatevered it to the app store? The FSF? Apple themselves? A third party?

If it was a third party, then the FSF was within their rights to call Apple on it, but Apple did no wrong (aside, perhaps, depending on how their approval procedure works, from lax approval). The third party, I would imagine, would then potentially be liable to both the FSF and Apple. To the FSF for infringing FSF copyright by uploading it and allowing it to be licensed under Apple's licensing terms when those terms are incompatible with the GPL, and to Apple for uploading stuff that they didn't have permission to upload and that could not be licensed under Apple's licensing terms.

If the FSF uploaded it, then it smells like they were just aiming for a publicity stunt or "sting" type operation. (Upload, then if Apple accepts, sue them for accepting).

If Apple uploaded it, then they took GPL'ed software and released it under a more restrictive license, and the FSF has every right to sue them.

The only organization that can upload applications to the Apple store is Apple itself. Others

may submit products for possible listing on Apple iPhone related developer and marketing web pages and programs.

and must agree that

By submitting applications for consideration to the iPhone Web Application Submission page, you understand your submission is subject to review by Apple. Apple reserves the right to omit, edit, or reject submissions

from https://adcweb.apple.com/iphone/. This is why the DMCA safe harbor provisions in the US and similar provisions in other countries do not apply and this becomes a case of copyright infringement by Apple pure and simple. If you want to tightly control what is in the store then you are also accountable for what is in the store.

[KiwiNZ]

What FUD from FSF?

This is all about Apple not allowing FLOSS in App Store. They allow things based on FLOSS which are striped of FLOSS license but not FLOSS itself. This action is very justifiable. It shows what Apple's true colors. Fanboys, off course, will chose to be blind.

Once the "Fanboy" mud slinging nonsense starts it's time to close a thread .