Yes Kay - I think you are right. This is a sort of unintended bug in the GPL - some purist like the bug because it puts pressure to keep platforms open - but it damages and confuses the situation with regard to open code.
On the other hand RunRev may have factored this into their business plan (I would have :) - and though I doubt they will want to "complain" to Apple and ask them to take down the app - they could do, AND it would be in their short term commercial interest to, because as it stands it is a major incentive to get the commercial license. It would be interesting to get RunRev's take on this - have they become FOSS purists :) On 8 April 2013 13:06, Kay C Lan <lan.kc.macm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Richard Gaskin > <ambassa...@fourthworld.com>wrote: > > > > > If Apple has recently changed their policies so they no longer have the > > distribution limits that had made it incompatible with the GPL, that > would > > be welcome news. But I wasn't able to turn up any info suggesting that, > so > > the items in the Wikipedia article you linked to seem to be > > well-intentioned people who simply don't follow the news from the FSF, > and > > Apple staff who apparently have a tough time keeping up with the > > ever-changing and inconsistently-applied rules there. > > > > Richard, > > Of all the contributors on this List I consider your comments the most > reasoned, level headed and open minded, but I must have missed something. > > I read your links 1 and 3, cause I'm and odd sort of guy, and all I > concluded from it was that it was GPL participants (VLC coders in one case) > that requested Apple remove certain GPL software, and Apple complied > because it was cheaper and easier than going to court over it. As you say, > Apples inconsistently-applied rules, to me do NOT seem to specifically > target rejection of GPL software. > > As far as I can tell LiveCode Community will allow me to write an iOS app > and as long as it includes stick figures and fart noises it is likely to be > approved by the App Store reviewers. For my part, in accordance with the > GPL I would include a link where anyone could download the 'source' stack > for their own modification. At which point, as long as I, Runrev, or > someone from this List does not complain to Apple, then it's likely to live > a long and highly ignored life at the App Store. > > As for the Apple restriction that the FSF are so concerned about, it seems > to be splitting hairs and shooting oneself in the foot. Again, if I follow > the GPL, and I link to the source stack, then that means anyone can > download and play with as many copies as they wish. Just because they don't > come as compiled installed apps seems to be a very very fine point. There > are plenty of Source Forge projects out there that don't have an OS X > complied version available, the only option is source code and compile it > yourself. If I was splitting hairs I'd say the GPL doesn't say 'compiled' > program, but just program. Apple's own restriction doesn't prevent anyone > from obtaining the source code and working with it unrestricted to their > hearts content .The only people the Apple restriction is going to effect is > end users who need a compiled app and have no clue about programming and > are never going to contribute to a FSF project in their life. > > Is that really detrimental to the FSF cause? Obviously from the articles, > some GPL software contributors think so. > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
