FSF vs. Apple
There has been a bit of drama going on about the Free Software Foundation attacking Apple in the past few days.
Basically,
1. There is a free video player software called VLC licensed under the GPL license.
2. Some company made an iPad version of this and started distributing it on Apple's app store.
3. Apple approved it, and people started downloading it, and all was well.
4. The FSF suddenly decided that Apple is violating the GPL's terms by distributing the VLC application and adding additional restrictions above and beyond the GPL.
5. One of the VLC developers responded saying he didn't think the app store terms were technically contrary to the GPL at all, and so there should be no problem.
I think that #4 and $5 both miss the point. The GPL has a few main aims in spirit:
1. Make sure users can get the programs under GPL licenses.
2. Make sure that the source code of said applications is available to those who want it.
Under the current situation, both points are satisfied.
#1. The binary (runnable) code can be grabbed from Apple. The developer is also providing it directly for download, but is of little practical benefit to most users, since they wouldn't be able to install it. The program is available for free from the app store, which is what most users would expect. If you think about it, Apple is providing free bandwidth.
#2. The source code for the iOS version is available for download from the VLC web site as well, so there is no problem there either.
Rather, the FSF is using this opportunity as a chance to stand on their soap-box and complain about DRM and bash Apple. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely hate DRM, but Apple's is one of the most permissive. What's more, DRM has nothing to do with this particular situation.
Let's look at the potential complaints:
1. You are limited on the number of devices you can install the software on.
Hmm, yeah kinda-sorta. You can authorize up to five computers with a single iTunes account. Last time I checked, you could pretty much install onto an unlimited number of iOS devices from any of those five computers. That restriction seems very lax, but at any rate, it doesn't really matter anyway because anyone can easily get around it by making multiple iTunes accounts. (And VLC is free from the iTunes store, so this doesn't involve paying for it multiple times).
1. The source code is not provided by Apple with the application. Well, what would you have Apple do? The app store isn't designed to distribute source code, it's designed to install programs. In fact, I seriously doubt the developer thought of supplying the source code to Apple, because there is no place in their standard process to do so. What's more, where would Apple present it? Perhaps it should be dumped into the Memo application on your iPhone when you install an app. Seriously? Technically, iTunes supports both eBooks and PDF files for PodCasting, so I suppose the developer could distribute the source code that way, but it's much easier just to put it on their own web site for download. It's not clear exactly what the FSF would have Apple do here. If they are more concerned with the technical terms of the license rather than the spirit, the developer could easily embed the source code in the application bundle, thereby distributing it to everyone who downloads the program (even though they wouldn't be able to see it or know it was there). Even if Apple did open something like SourceForge, if they only put the code of the released applications there, it would be out of date anyway. What developers want is typically the development version of the source code, not the release version.
2. Users can't redistribute the programs from the app store.
Again, this is not a practical matter. There would be no convenient way of distributing them anyway. The best way to "distribute" an iOS application is to send an app store link to your friend. I don't know about the paid apps, but for commercial apps, one can also "gift" apps to other people. Once again, for a free app, it makes no difference anyway. License terms aside, there is no user interface for distributing apps from one device to another. If Apple updated their license terms tomorrow to say "end users may distribute free apps", it wouldn't matter. Again, it's not really clear exactly what the FSF would want Apple to do here. It seems more like they just want to use this as an opportunity complain - particularly since the VLC developers would be the ones to complain if there was a problem.
Another, more realistic, way of looking at this is this: The developer of the iOS version of the app is the distributor, they are just using the App store as a means of distribution. If they withheld the source code, Apple wouldn't be able to distribute it anyway. The program binary and source are available online separately, so what is available from Apple is really a mute point. Apple didn't design their terms of service to lock out GPL applications, but to make things consistent. Apple is a distributor here in the same sense that the USPS is a distributor of CDs. It doesn't make sense to blame them for not doing something that they aren't set up to do, and that there is no practical way for them to do.
Basically,
1. There is a free video player software called VLC licensed under the GPL license.
2. Some company made an iPad version of this and started distributing it on Apple's app store.
3. Apple approved it, and people started downloading it, and all was well.
4. The FSF suddenly decided that Apple is violating the GPL's terms by distributing the VLC application and adding additional restrictions above and beyond the GPL.
5. One of the VLC developers responded saying he didn't think the app store terms were technically contrary to the GPL at all, and so there should be no problem.
I think that #4 and $5 both miss the point. The GPL has a few main aims in spirit:
1. Make sure users can get the programs under GPL licenses.
2. Make sure that the source code of said applications is available to those who want it.
Under the current situation, both points are satisfied.
#1. The binary (runnable) code can be grabbed from Apple. The developer is also providing it directly for download, but is of little practical benefit to most users, since they wouldn't be able to install it. The program is available for free from the app store, which is what most users would expect. If you think about it, Apple is providing free bandwidth.
#2. The source code for the iOS version is available for download from the VLC web site as well, so there is no problem there either.
Rather, the FSF is using this opportunity as a chance to stand on their soap-box and complain about DRM and bash Apple. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely hate DRM, but Apple's is one of the most permissive. What's more, DRM has nothing to do with this particular situation.
Let's look at the potential complaints:
1. You are limited on the number of devices you can install the software on.
Hmm, yeah kinda-sorta. You can authorize up to five computers with a single iTunes account. Last time I checked, you could pretty much install onto an unlimited number of iOS devices from any of those five computers. That restriction seems very lax, but at any rate, it doesn't really matter anyway because anyone can easily get around it by making multiple iTunes accounts. (And VLC is free from the iTunes store, so this doesn't involve paying for it multiple times).
1. The source code is not provided by Apple with the application. Well, what would you have Apple do? The app store isn't designed to distribute source code, it's designed to install programs. In fact, I seriously doubt the developer thought of supplying the source code to Apple, because there is no place in their standard process to do so. What's more, where would Apple present it? Perhaps it should be dumped into the Memo application on your iPhone when you install an app. Seriously? Technically, iTunes supports both eBooks and PDF files for PodCasting, so I suppose the developer could distribute the source code that way, but it's much easier just to put it on their own web site for download. It's not clear exactly what the FSF would have Apple do here. If they are more concerned with the technical terms of the license rather than the spirit, the developer could easily embed the source code in the application bundle, thereby distributing it to everyone who downloads the program (even though they wouldn't be able to see it or know it was there). Even if Apple did open something like SourceForge, if they only put the code of the released applications there, it would be out of date anyway. What developers want is typically the development version of the source code, not the release version.
2. Users can't redistribute the programs from the app store.
Again, this is not a practical matter. There would be no convenient way of distributing them anyway. The best way to "distribute" an iOS application is to send an app store link to your friend. I don't know about the paid apps, but for commercial apps, one can also "gift" apps to other people. Once again, for a free app, it makes no difference anyway. License terms aside, there is no user interface for distributing apps from one device to another. If Apple updated their license terms tomorrow to say "end users may distribute free apps", it wouldn't matter. Again, it's not really clear exactly what the FSF would want Apple to do here. It seems more like they just want to use this as an opportunity complain - particularly since the VLC developers would be the ones to complain if there was a problem.
Another, more realistic, way of looking at this is this: The developer of the iOS version of the app is the distributor, they are just using the App store as a means of distribution. If they withheld the source code, Apple wouldn't be able to distribute it anyway. The program binary and source are available online separately, so what is available from Apple is really a mute point. Apple didn't design their terms of service to lock out GPL applications, but to make things consistent. Apple is a distributor here in the same sense that the USPS is a distributor of CDs. It doesn't make sense to blame them for not doing something that they aren't set up to do, and that there is no practical way for them to do.
Comments
Post a Comment