[mythtv-users] OT Apple vs GPL (Was: THIS IS A NON-COMMERCIAL MAILING LIST)
linux at thehobsons.co.uk
Thu Apr 19 11:11:54 UTC 2012
Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> > It does, fundamentally. If you distribute a binary of a GPLed work, you are
>> *required* to also make available the source that can be used to make that
>> binary. Since Apple add an extra layer to the binary (the
>> encryption/signing) which cannot be replicated without the algorithm and
>> private key(s) used by Apple, then that cannot be complied with while also
>> complying with Apple's policies.
>That is not the primarily reason why GPL is in contradiction with the
>AppStore distribution license.
>No one prevents you to add in the description of your application a
>link to the source code.
>Making it available doesn't mean it has to be packaged with the
>application itself. Plenty of way to make a source code *available*
Wrong, because the source code you would be offering is **NOT** the
source code that can be used to build what is being distributed. This
is one step past the TiVo problem.
With TiVo, they were in compliance (with GPL v2) because you could
have the source code that would build exactly the binary they were
installing - but they keyed the bootloader/'bios' so that it would
not load anything else. So you could build the same binary, but you
could not modify the code *and* have the bootloader boot it.
Technically in compliance with GPL v2, but in practical terms useless.
With Apple, there is another step in the build process between what
the developer submits and what is delivered to users. So the source
the developer has will not build what the end user has.
>What is the primary contradiction with the GPL is that Apple enforce
>extra restriction through their DRM. You can't install the application
>you purchase on more than 5 devices, and you can't re-distribute it.
>GPL strictly forbid applying re-distribution restrictions.
>Don't like Apple's way of doing things? here is an easy solution for
>you: Don't buy an iOS device, and don't buy apps.
>Buying an iPhone only to complain later that you can't do whatever you
>want with it is a bit hypocritical. The restrictions are well known up
>Screaming "Freedom!" or "GPL!", yet buy an iOS device anyway shows
>that really, moral rectitude is only skin deep.
That is a valid point, but doesn't contradict what I said. If you
took the attitude that you weren't going to buy something because
there's a flaw would mean you wouldn't ever buy anything. Naff car
analogy - there isn't a car I know of that doesn't have some
"feature" I don't like, but needing to travel I choose one that
overall offers the "best" compromise based on my criteria. In the
same manner, many of use rail against "binary drivers", yet I suspect
that most of us actually use tuners and/or network cards with such a
binary driver to some degree or other (often a binary firmware to
download at bootup).
So disagreeing with something but still buying it isn't necessarily
hypocrisy, pragmatism more like.
Show me a phone that does not have any restrictions ? There are none,
zero, zilch. Some are less closed than others, but none are truly
Ryan Patterson wrote:
>Actually the restrictions are not known up front. I didn't know about
>any of the restrictions that you just outlined until I read your
>e-mail just now. And I would consider myself more than averagely
>knowledgeable regarding smart phones.
That is another factor. The vast majority of users are completely
oblivious to the one way street they are treading. To most people
"it's shiny, it works", and they are oblivious to what's going on
behind the scenes - ever had a conversion trying to explain to a
non-techie what DRM is and what's wrong with it ?
Visit http://www.magpiesnestpublishing.co.uk/ for books by acclaimed
author Gladys Hobson. Novels - poetry - short stories - ideal as
Christmas stocking fillers. Some available as e-books.
More information about the mythtv-users