It appears that an iPhone version of GnuGo is in violation of the GPL due to the distribution restrictions mandated by Apple's iTunes Store.

The FSF is in discussions with Apple and the developer of the software to make the iTunes Store compatible with GPL distribution, but are making the discussions public in case Apple decides to quietly pull the app from the store as they have done in the past.

Here is the FSF announcement.

... is very well written for my taste.

(will APPLE care? Curious, not cynical)

_________________
Greetings,
Tommie

3dan EGF (AGA no 13477) || Tommie on KGS: 'June'|| DGS: 'Zhi Laohu' 纸老虎 = 'paper tiger' || Senseis : http://senseis.xmp.net/?tderz ||
ENFP (MBTI) - 'Find your own style within the Fundamentals of Go! '

My guess is that, at best, Apple will simply remove the software, as the FSF points out that the upstream developer is at fault too.

But this is a bit humorous:

"If you cannot modify the software that you use, then that program can be designed to serve someone else's interests over yours. It's unsurprising that Apple would put its users in this predicament; they've made no secret of the fact that they intend to control what people do on their products with an iron fist. Whether they stop you from doing certain tasks by banning VoIP apps, or limit people's speech by selectively blocking political commentary, Apple sees to it that App Store apps serve Apple's interests first, Apple's business partners' interests second, and yours a distant third."

First, most of this has nothing to do with the case in point. Second, Apple does not "control what people do on their products with an iron fist." These software controls are only on the iPhone, iPod touch and iPad; Apple works very closely with free software developers for Mac programs, even releasing a free version of much of their OS.

The FSF is not entirely wrong about their license, but, again, it's not Apple who's really in violation. And they sound like rabid fundamentalists again, as they often do.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Yes they do, once you notice the lack of an "all" in the sentence

Apple is certainly in violation--it distributed GNU Go through its app store without complying with the GPL. Whether the upstream developers also violated the GPL is immaterial, although Apple may in turn go after them for any damages it suffers..

Apple will almost certainly remove the software, but that doesn't change its GPL obligations to the people who have already purchased the software. For those people Apple really only has two choices: comply with the GPL or face potential litigation for copyright infringement from the developers of GNU Go.

Are you suggesting that any vendor has to verify the code in an application before selling it? I doubt that the courts would see it that way.

Apple is not infringing on copyright; you're a bit confused there. This is not a question of copyright, but rather a somewhat curious license that attempts to impose conditions on the entire sales chain. (Which makes me wonder if it has ever been tested in court too.) Retailers are certainly not responsible for the contents of things they sell; if they were, you'd see them sued for copyright violations whenever this is, say, a case of plagiarism in a book.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Wow, you have got it turned completely around. It is certainly a question of copyright and Apple has been distributing the software in violation of the license for copying/selling that software. In the U.S. retailers are absolutely responsible for the content of the products they sell, which is why versions of books that are not licensed properly are pulled from shelves. (See Amazon.com/Kindle/1984).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl#The_GPL_in_court

tldr; GPL stands up fine in court

Sorry, it's not copyright. If Apple - or any other company - were selling it under their name, then it would be. But retailers are not in any way responsible for the content of what they sell, other than having to replace such content if there are issues with it (such as the Amazon / 1984 case, or such as a faulty product).

BTW, I find it truly humorous how people through around "copyright violation" (with a Monty-Pythonesque voice) all the time, without understanding very much about copyright law. Obviously, the FSF found a developer breaking their rules and rather than picking on the developer decided to attack Apple so they could get some press. And even in this thread, those accusing Apple of a copyright violation are at best clueless about IP law. (Naturally, if a retailer has cognizance of copyright violation, such as knowingly reselling pirated software, DVDs, etc, it's a different kettle of fish.)

FWIW, there's an interesting recent case written up here:

http://fleamarketzone.com/2010/04/16/coles-v-sony/

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

As an aside, the story has now hit Slashdot!

_________________
The road to wisdom? Well, it's plain, and simple to express: Err, and err, and err again; but less, and less, and less!

Which is exactly why the FSF raised the issue and accused Apple rather than the developer, who is, most likely, in violation of Apple's conditions for providing software to the iTunes Store. The FSF just wants publicity. To be fair, they're not wrong what they're saying, but it's the developer who is responsible for the whole thing.

As an aside, people often wonder why Apple doesn't support "open" formats like FLAC. I'm pretty sure it's this type of thing, where patent trolls would attack Apple because they're a big target. While FLAC is open source, that doesn't means it's unencumbered by potential patent claims from others.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Kirk, you remind me of the old Robert Heinlein quote:“Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”. I am completely unable to have an intelligent conversation with you, which is probably my failing. It is my opinion that you are wrong, but there is nothing I can say to convince you of that so I am no longer going to try. In the end, none of us "armchair lawyers" are going to decide the matter. It is up to Apple, the FSF, and the developer of the iPhone GnuGo software. What you or I say about it means nothing.

With all due respect, if you don't know what you're talking about, then it means nothing. You have your opinion, but it is unfounded, at least in this case.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

From what I read, Apple asks all users of the iPhone market to agree to some conditions that conflict with the GPL.

The iPhone gnugo author agreed to those conditions which he legally was not allowed to do.

Then gnugo appeared in the marketplace.

It's hard to see that Apple would be liable for any damages at all here, and it sounds like the FSF isn't interested in damages anyway. They just want Apple to let people put GPL products in the marketplace. I don't know whether Apple will change their marketplace rules or just pull GnuGo, but whichever they choose, that will be the end of the story.

Kirk, you really don't have to rise to the defence of Apple in every thread that criticises them for anything anywhere that appears on L19 you know

That was my read as well. If Apple can modify the provisions in the iTunes store to allow GPL software to be sold it is a win for everyone. It is more likely that Apple will just drop the software, in essence banning future GPL software on iDevices.

Why do you think people post Apple bashing here in the first place?

_________________
FusekiLibrary, an opening library.
SGF converter tools: Wbaduk NGF to SGF | 440 go problems | Fuseki made easy | Tesuji made easy | Elementary training & Dan level testing | Dan Tutor Shortcut To Dan

It's not so much defending or bashing, it's simply people posting things that are, well, wrong. As wms said, developers agree to certain conditions with Apple (which I'm sure are similar to those wms agreed with for the Android store), and if a developer is in violation of something, the fact that the FSF singles out Apple is being done simply for the FSF to get publicity. Apple's an easy target these days, becoming, to many, the new Microsoft.

But it's simply ludicrous how people shout "copyright violation" without a modicum of understanding of an issue.

Heck, if it were Adobe being accused of the same thing here, I'd react. Or if the FSF whined about something sold on the Android store as well. Copyright is something that is totally misunderstood by most people, yet they feel qualified to wax philosophic about it.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

With all due respect, you cannot shut down an argument by generally saying that no one understands the issue.

I have not read this story and I am not saying Apple is potentially liable (or not) resulting from any actions in this matter, but you are fundamentally incorrect that a retailer cannot be liable for the items it resells. The retailer could incur liability even if the party (here, the developer) signed an agreement affirming that they were complying with, e.g., copyright and related laws. Example: Bob owns a retails store selling DVDs. Slick drives up in a white van to sell new DVDs to Bob so Bob can resell them. Bob notices that the covers on the DVDs look like they were made from a dot matrix printer, and generally look a little "off." So Bob has Slick sign an agreement that includes an affirmation that the DVDs are legit (e.g. do not violate copyright or other laws).

Is Bob potentially liable for reselling the DVDs? Yes, quite possibly. A court would probably examine whether Bob knew or should have known that the DVDs were not authorized by the copyright holder.

Here, Apple scrutinizes every application they sell. That is, each application is vetted by Apple. By doing so, I think Apple takes an even greater responsibility--i.e., a court is more likely to determine that they "should have known" about a violation. There is a Youtube or Grokster case or something that addresses this.

tl;dr version: Software distributor's agreement doesn't completely shield Apple.

Important note: This is not legal advice, and is not intended to be.

Well, the retail argument is pretty simple to deal with. You're using the example of DVDs, but it could be any type of intellectual property. In all such businesses, there are a limited number of "real" distributors; ie, those people who buy wholesale and sell wholesale, buying from publishers and selling to retailers. I was a bookseller for several years, and bought books for the store I worked in. I would never have bought from a sales rep I didn't know, in part because we had accounts with all the distributors, and in part because it would just not be what you do in retail.

In the case of Apple here, they have terms and conditions that developers must agree to. They certainly have IP clauses, similar to those in the many contracts I've signed for books I've written. The publisher - or reseller, in Apple's case - is not required to prove without a shadow of a doubt that anything they sell is not encumbered by possible claims; that's what the contract is for. I'm not sure whether Apple actually examines source code in all cases - I know that source code is provided to them - but even if they did, what in the source code would tell them that there's a potential problem?

No, I don't think they have any more responsibility than anyone else who, in good faith, takes on a distribution agreement for content they have either bought or contracted. There have been cases in the courts (such as the Sony one I linked to above) showing that resellers are generally exempted from such torts if they have acted in good faith. Like your DVD example, however, if someone did knowingly buy DVDs like that, they would certainly be guilty. But given the way the retail world works, this is unlikely.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville