This is a far better explanation than the previously linked to references which clearly missed the real points of contention. I think this makes the case that there is an irreconcilable conflict which would require that wesnoth not be distributed under the terms of the apple app store. I really don't see how anyone is going to get around that without doing a total rewrite, at which point they should probably consider just writing their own game for profit.
John aka DarthFool ------------------------------------------------------------------- "In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice they're different." --Unknown "In the constrained vision, each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late." --T.S., 'A Conflict of Visions' ------------------------------------------------------------------- John W. C. McNabb ------------------------------------------------------------------- On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 22:07, Gabriel Morin <[email protected]> wrote: > Is there a GPL violation? > > Regarding the GPL violation, up to now the main point that was discussed > here seems to have been the app store EULA limiting binary redistribution, > but I've done a bit more research, and discovered some things that are > possibly worse. I'm providing this info to make the situation clearer, and > I'm asking people to take time to make their own research, instead of > reading one sentence out of context and screaming "omg omg". In short, at > least try to scream for a good reason. > > Restrictions on modification and redistribution > > The EFF obtained a copy of the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement > (my observations are based on this version). Kyle had to agree to this > agreement as everyone other iPhone dev, and probably didn't mention it since > the agreement prohibits making public statements about it. > > Quoting the EFF article, here comes the bad stuff: > > App Store Only: Section 7.2 makes it clear that any applications developed > using Apple's SDK may only be publicly distributed through the App Store, > and that Apple can reject an app for any reason, even if it meets all the > formal requirements disclosed by Apple. So if you use the SDK and your app > is rejected by Apple, you're prohibited from distributing it through > competing app stores like Cydia or Rock Your Phone. > > or, directly quoted from Apple's document: > > 3.2 > ... > (f) Applications developed using the Apple Software may only be distributed > if selected by Apple > (in its sole discretion) for distribution via the App Store or for limited > distribution on Registered > Devices (ad hoc distribution) as contemplated in this Agreement. > > [...] > > 7.3 No Other Distribution Authorized Under this Agreement > Except for the distribution of freely available Licensed Applications and > the distribution of > Applications for use on Registered Devices as set forth in Sections 7.1 and > 7.2 above, no other > distribution of programs or applications developed using the Apple Software > is authorized or > permitted hereunder. In the absence of a separate agreement with Apple, You > agree not to > distribute Your Application to third parties via other distribution methods > or to enable or permit > others to do so. > > Compare this to the GPL (I encourage you to read those excerpts in context): > > 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, > thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such > modifications or work [...] > > 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the > Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original > licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms > and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the > recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. [...] > > 7. [...] If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your > obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as > a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. [...] > > Apple says "you can't distribute this iPhone app in any form or through any > means unless we explicitly allow you to do so, and you can't allow others to > disobey this rule". GPL says: "you can distribute this iPhone app in any > form and through any means you want, and you can't prevent others to do so". > Do I sense a subtle opposition? > > What I can clearly see here is that having access to the Wesnoth iPhone port > source code is pretty much useless, probably explicitly prohibited by Apple, > and even if it wasn't, doesn't accomplish at all the GPL's purpose of > allowing downstream users to freely modify and redistribute the program. > > In fact, it seems that you can't acquire the iPhone SDK and agree to its > terms of use without automatically voiding your rights to > modify/redistribute any GPL program for the iPhone. > > Let's say I purchase wesnoth for my hypothetical iPhone and download the > source code: > > Apple's app store EULA prohibits me to redistribute the binary. > Kyle is obligated by Apple to tell me I have no right to modify/redistribute > the app in source form either, since it was developed with the SDK. > If I want to modify and redistribute Wesnoth for the iPhone, I must use the > developer SDK, which forces me to agree to only do it through Apple's > appstore, and if they refuse my app, distributing it by any other mean is > illegal. > Any workaround I could possibly think of involves jailbreaking, whose > illegality has not been ruled by courts yet (I think), but which I can't do > anyways without breaking my agreement(s) with Apple. > Having to ask permission to redistribute already flies straight in the face > of the GPL, but realistically speaking, do you think Apple will allow a > second, third, fourth distributor of Wesnoth on the app store? It wouldn't > make sense from a business point of view, and they are known to be very > stringent in their selection. Anyone who downloads wesnoth for the iPhone is > supposed to have the same rights for modification, redistribution and > selling as Kyle Poole, but in essence we've granted this fine gentleman > exclusive commercial rights to wesnoth. > > Possible conflict with closed-source DRM > > Another interesting part of Apple's document, which may or may not affect > our discussion: > > 3.3.16 If Your Application includes any FOSS, You agree to comply with > all applicable > FOSS licensing terms. You also agree not to use any FOSS in the development > of Your > Application in such a way that would cause the non-FOSS portions of the > Apple Software to > be subject to any FOSS licensing terms or obligations. > > and > > 5. > ... > You further represent and warrant to Apple that the licensing terms > governing Your Application, or > governing any third party code or FOSS included in Your Application, will be > consistent with and > not conflict with the digital signing or content protection aspects of the > Program or any of the > terms, conditions or requirements of the Program or this Agreement. In > particular, such licensing > terms will not purport to require Apple (or its agents) to disclose or make > available any of the > keys, authorization codes, methods, procedures, data or other information > related to the Security > Solution, digital signing or digital rights management mechanisms utilized > as part of the Program. > > Does Apple add any DRM-type code (or require the developer to do it > secretly) to the binary that goes on the appstore? If so, the GPL clearly > forces them to publish their drm code as part of the wesnoth source code, > and they saw fit to protect themselves against this in the parts I put in > bold. If such hidden DRM exists, then Kyle's publishing of wesnoth on the > app store violates the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement. > Keep in mind that if Apple doesn't do DRM this way, nothing prevents them > from introducing it in the near future. > > In case you're wondering why they seem to imply that you *can* include FLOSS > in an iPhone app, they're refering to LGPL-style licensed libraries could > conceivably be included in a commercial iPhone app and not contradict this > clause. All the other license clashes mentioned in this email would still > apply, though. > > The relevant GPLv2 section: > 2. b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole > or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to > be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of > this License > > Failure to offer source code download > > Superficially this seems to be nitpicking from a pragmatic POV, but further > reflection shows that it's a very pragmatic clause that makes sense. And > holds legal weight. > > (quoting the GPLv2) > > 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under > Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 > and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: > > a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source > code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on > a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, > b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to > give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically > performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the > corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 > and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, > c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to > distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for > noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object > code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b > above.) Apple doesn't offer a download of the source code + this is a > commercial distribution = failure to comply with the GPL. I already hear the > anti-GPL screams, so let me just point out that this is very easy to comply > with, and that it makes a lot of sense (ok, you linked to > wesnoth.org/sourceforge.net/gna!, but those go down, what? Apple is supposed > to ensure "in-person" that purchasers of iPhone wesnoth can obtain a copy of > the source code, not rely happily on a third-party.) > > Conclusion - My understanding of the situation > > My global view of this is that the GPL (and people who use it for their > software) is incredibly generous: fulfill a few easy conditions, and commit > to pass on the same rights you obtain, and you can *sell* what may be the > work of hundreds of people. > Wesnoth's case shows that Apple is only too willing to profit from GPL apps, > but isn't willing to make the extremely minimal efforts to acquire the right > to sell them on the app store.They don't even have the basic infrastructure > in place for redistribution of source code, which is a basic condition set > by the GPL for commercial redistribution. (Don't tell me their lawyers don't > know the GPL by heart, I'll laugh at you.) Furthermore they impose on users > and developers licenses that are in many parts the complete opposite of the > GPL. We can't really stop them from depriving their users of using GPL apps, > and they themselves don't deserve making money from those apps. > > Saying that there's a GPL violation is not the right term. The whole apple > licensing agreements are mo********ing anti-GPL constructs. > > I think the documents I linked here highlight the fact that Apple started a > war a while ago, and is trying to create a future for computing where free > software isn't even possible. They want total control and lock-in over both > devs and users, and that means artificial rarity and big money. In that > sense giving in and relicensing or dual-licensing wesnoth (a, if not the > flagship of FLOSS gaming) is telling them they're right, and encouraging the > creation of a situation where Wesnoth being GPL (or any license really) will > be a moot point, since very few people will have devices where they can > actually redistribute and modify it. > > This said, it saddens me to see such a talented dev as Kyle in this mess, > but he got into it willingly, and agreed to this dubious secret agreement. > If iPhone wesnoth stops, he still made a lot of money from it, taking > advantage of users through an illegal rarity (created in cooperation with > Apple) in the distribution of the game. Wesnoth devs who agreed to the > scheme shouldn't feel proud, either, but at least they made no personal > profit. > > I've come to the conclusion that, both legally and ethically, it's > impossible to justify Wesnoth's presence on the app store. As an alternate > source of income, I suggest selling wesnoth for all available platforms > (even alongside the free download), which might have better luck than a > donation button which people often interpret as begging. Some of the money > should be reinvested in a bit of marketing. If we can somehow maintain an > iPhone port of wesnoth without using the Apple SDK, we could sell that too, > for jailbroken iPhones, but the Android market might be a much better place > to make money while respecting users and the GPL. Maybe I'm daydreaming, but > maybe Kyle with his experience of mobile devices, could stay with us and > work on an Android port instead. > > Gabriel aka gabba > > _______________________________________________ > Wesnoth-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev > > _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
