Life In 19x19

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.

Redbeard wrote:the FSF announcement.

... is very well written for my taste.

(will APPLE care? Curious, not cynical)

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.

kirkmc wrote:Second, Apple does not "control what people do on their products with an iron fist."

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

kirkmc wrote: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.
...
it's not Apple who's really in violation

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.

pwaldron wrote:

kirkmc wrote: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.
...
it's not Apple who's really in violation

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. Apple can comply with the GPL or face potential legal action 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.

kirkmc wrote: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.

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).

kirkmc wrote:
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.

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

tldr; GPL stands up fine in court

Redbeard wrote:

kirkmc wrote: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.

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).

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/

As an aside, the story has now hit Slashdot!

Adrian Petrescu wrote:As an aside, the story has now hit Slashdot!

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.

kirkmc wrote: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.

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.

Redbeard wrote:

kirkmc wrote: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.

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.

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