On 27 Jun 2011, at 12:50, Benjamin Horst wrote: > > On Jun 25, 2011, at 4:36 PM, Cor Nouws wrote: >> Charles-H. Schulz wrote (25-06-11 14:52) >>> There was quite a lengthy discussion on the discuss list months ago >>> about the same topic. Many things were written. I think that what would >>> be really helpful would be if someone were to review the various app >>> stores rules and terms, and identify the ones we can readily work with >>> and the other ones where we would have a major legal problem. Would you >>> like to drive this? >>> [...] >> >> I support that proposal, Charles ! > > When we discussed this last year, I researched a bit and found the following > article from the FSF: > http://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance > > The article's summary: > > An iPhone port of GNU Go is currently being distributed through Apple's App > Store. However, this distribution is not in compliance with the GNU GPL. The > primary problem is that Apple imposes numerous legal restrictions on use and > distribution of GNU Go through the iTunes Store Terms of Service, which is > forbidden by section 6 of GPLv2. So today we have written to Apple and asked > them to come into compliance. We would be happy to see Apple distribute these > programs under the GPL's terms, but unfortunately, it seems much more likely > that they'll simply make the problem go away by removing GNU Go from the App > Store. > ---- > I think the above refers to the iOS App Store, but I do not know if the > relevant terms are any different for the Mac App Store. (I think it predates > the existence of the Mac App Store.) > > The other difference is that the article refers to the GPL and not > specifically the LGPL license. > > I will follow up further and let you know what I discover.
Personally I think that conclusion is debatable. While Apple was the channel, the actual distribution was done by whoever put the software into the channel and it's not obvious to me that the situation is any different to, say, buying a PC with Linux on it from a "members only" retailer like CostCo. As long as the offer of source was made, I suspect an equally valid case could be constructed that there's no "coming into compliance" to be done. Not that I am a lawyer, of course :-) Just saying that I suspect the action in that link was motivated more by politics than by legal certainty... S. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
