On Jan 12, 2011, at 9:58 AM, Zachary West wrote: > Additionally, the EULA you are forced to add on your application requires a > non-transferrable license, while the GPL is explicitly transferrable.
This gets at the heart of the philosophical clash between GPL and the App Store. From the Free Software Definition (not a legal document but it lays out the philosophy of Free Software): > - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom > 2). > [...] > The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of > the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified > versions. Legal language aside, the code signing and receipt system is tied to each individual machine, even for free applications. It's possible a legal eagle might be able to work something out, but this is the fundamental conflict we're dealing with: Apple wants you to buy / download copies of applications through their online store which not an onerous requirement these days but the GPLv2 at least was written and designed in a world where most software came on floppies and ordering another copy might take weeks thus their insistence on being able to distribute binary copies to "help your neighbor". Personally, I find that particular Free Software freedom to be increasingly outdated, but my opinion does not hold much weight with the FSF ;) -Colin
