It totally ignores that it was the GPLv3 that let Apple move to LLVM - with Apple not being the only company that was kind of okay with GPLv2 but totally avoids GPLv3.
It often looses touch with reality. It absolutely ignores that Apple was a contributor of GCC and some of the LLVM developers were GCC developers before.
It goes on and on how LLVM is in a terrible state that will get even worse because of a missing copyleft, when in reality LLVM is thriving because of the many companies that are contributing.
> Yeah, no. They contribute the same to LLVM -- and even more than they did with GCC--, while still nobody "compells" them.
This does not negate OP's statement, "The fact that we can see and examine the source [of the Objective-C compiler] is because of the GNU GPL." We have very well-documented and undisputed evidence that NeXT wanted to make the Objective-C compiler proprietary, and that they only backed down after the FSF lawyers determined that that would be a violation of the license.
As far as Apple's open source contributions, according to Saurik, they often fall short even when legally compelled, let alone their voluntary contributions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2083877
Because the App Store prevents people redistributing apps they have bought and that is incompatible with the GPL. They actually did allow them until the FSF sued them[1].
Apple limit redistribution because they want to make it harder to pirate apps. That isn't the choice I'd make for my apps but I can see why Apple feels they need to try and prevent piracy.
Some people have suggested allowing free apps to be redistributed and thus allowing free GPL apps, but the result of that would just be somebody putting up GNU Go for $0.99 and then getting sued by the FSF again. They probably don't think it's worth the hassle of special casing free GPL apps, when users who want them can easily just get them outside of the store.
> but the result of that would just be somebody putting up GNU Go for $0.99 and then getting sued by the FSF again.
Why would the FSF sue in this instance? As far as I can tell it's not about the $0 or $0.99 price - if the $0.99 app provides the a way for users to get the source, it will be GPL-compliant the FSF will be fine with that.
GPL requires unlimited binary redistribution. Since Apple does not want to allow that, the suggestion was to allow binary redistribution just for free apps. If this suggestion is implemented, $0.99 GNU Go is not a free app, so Apple would disallow binary redistribution, and FSF will sue Apple.
This entire thread is news to me. Just the other day I was searching the apple store for "GNU" and "GPL" and came up with almost nothing of note.
So what you are saying is if I wrote, say, a game for the app store, and wanted to release it under GPLv3, Apple wouldn't approve it? Even if I provide the binaries/src on a seperate website linked from within the app but not dependent on apple in anyway whatsoever?
Would it matter on the monetization scheme? eg free, one time payment, in app purchases, all with access to src to be compatible with GPL?
If it's true that Apple doesn't allow GPL'd s/w in the store, I think my hatred for Apple just grew by 10,000 sizes.
edit: Seems to be true, Apple store is completely at odds with GPL'd software, and potentially quite a few other licenses.
> So what you are saying is if I wrote, say, a game for the app store, and wanted to release it under GPLv3, Apple wouldn't approve it? Even if I provide the binaries/src on a seperate website linked from within the app but not dependent on apple in anyway whatsoever?
Well, to clarify. You, as a software author, are quite free to release your software under both the GPL and the Apple App Store. This is fine. In other words, you're distributing your software under multiple licenses.
What you cannot do is distribute someone else's GPL'd code as part of your Apple App Store app, because the GPL does not give you the right to distribute the code under the App Store's conditions.
OpenSSH is under a BSD license, so there shouldn't be a problem with it on the app store. However, it doesn't provide a terminal so I don't know how you would use it. It may be included in the app you installed though.
The GPL says, "you must grant people the right to distribute, modify, and study this... or you may not distribute it at all." The app store says, "you may not redistribute this".
Those two terms are incompatible, and neither side is willing to change the terms.
It's not so much that Apple won't allow it as Apple's terms and GPLv3's requirements are incompatible with each other, and neither Apple nor the FSF is willing to budge.
I'd suggest looking into the VLC debacle. VLC used to be in the App Store, and some VLC developers threatened to sue because Apple was distributing VLC in violation of the GPL.
App Store TOS does to a license what a virus does to a binary; they both inject themselves with no respect to what already exist.
Apple's terms are incompatible with any license which do not allow additional terms to be injected. This mean any license, be that proprietary, copyleft, or permissive. If you don't have the authors permission to add additional restrictions, Apple's terms are legally prohibiting you to use it in App Store.
But from a practical point, only GPL apps has so far been pulled from App Store. Proprietary apps are permitted if the author permits the additional restrictions, and permissive licensed apps are so far being left alone, regardless of the arguments from people like Theo (http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070913014315).
If you want to sign the app, then yes. For the time being, it is an option to be able to run non-signed apps. You can currently ok selected apps by ctrl-clicking the app and using "Open" on the popup menu then answering "Ok" to the warning.
It totally ignores that it was the GPLv3 that let Apple move to LLVM - with Apple not being the only company that was kind of okay with GPLv2 but totally avoids GPLv3.
It often looses touch with reality. It absolutely ignores that Apple was a contributor of GCC and some of the LLVM developers were GCC developers before. It goes on and on how LLVM is in a terrible state that will get even worse because of a missing copyleft, when in reality LLVM is thriving because of the many companies that are contributing.