> > One thing I forget to add; probably the *very best way* to address this > issue is to contact the library author and say, “Hey, I want to use your > LGPL code in my Mac app and put it on the App Store; is that ok? Do you mind > if people can’t dynamically link their own copy, because really, no one will > want to?” (Unfortunately, that hasn’t been an option for me to date.) > > Cheers, > Demitri
Some points that have not already been said: - There are some (less common) interpretations of the L(GPL) that Apple is technically on the hook for dealing with the license because _they_ are the ones technically “distributing” the software. Under this interpretation, Apple could be held accountable for upholding the terms of the GPL. That’s why the original question about whether Apple has a problem with L(GPL) is actually a good/fair/interesting question because we all know they don’t want to deal with it. In practice, the rule of dealing with Apple as a developer is don’t embarrass Apple. This specific issue doesn’t come up that often and there are usually other terms in the L(GPL) that kill projects before it gets to this phase. But if Apple gets pushed into the limelight, be assured they will simply take down your app and end the controversy. And also in practice, I’ve heard of L(GPL) software in the App Store, so in general I don’t think it’s a major issue. - Contacting the author is a good idea. Not everybody picks the LGPL for the same reason. While there are some deep into the free software philosophy, there are others (e.g. Linus Torvalds) who picked it simply because they wanted to give out software but also make sure they could get back any improvements you might make. Some people pick it so they can upsell you a commercial license (e.g. Qt). And then there are a lot of people who picked it because they were told it was ‘the in-thing to do’ without really understanding the details of the license. (And to be fair, pre-app store days before codesigning were a lot simpler to think about.) Finding out what the author wants will also tell you how much trouble you might have. (See next point) - Only the license holder(s) have standing to file a claim against you. So if you find that the license holder doesn’t care, then you won’t have any problems. Conversely, if the author is deep into the philosophy, then you should find out if this is a problem for them because if it is, they can cause you problems. (Do be aware that some software has multiple license holders so you may need hunt down multiple people.) - Some authors also are willing to relicense or grant you a special license (sometimes for money). Contacting and negotiating will allow you to go down this path. - Your worst case is a license holder who really dislikes you or Apple might try to take down your app. This is why contacting to evaluate them is a good idea. However, unless you are a big known company or a really high profile app that makes you a target, likely nobody will want to go to court, especially if you’ve been trying your best to comply to the terms of the license (e.g dynamically linking the library, offering a non-MAS store version to buyers, and the other things said in this thread). Proving “damages” is a really hard thing in this case so it’s not clear if they could win any money from you…merely just cease & desist. And because there is so much ambiguity in the license for this case, it is not FSF’s or anybody else’s interest to establish potentially bad case law precedent for such minor issues because if a ruling goes against the L(GPL), it would permanently hurt it. _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
