«

On May 29, 2:02*pm, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
> It's no wonder that open source software can't get much traction. Just
> consider the stunt that the Free Software Foundation is pulling with GPL'd
> software distributed through the Apple's App Store.
>

It is most probable that Apple can arrange the software that any
'commercially sensitive' parts are not subject to the GPL but these
parts would need to be written from scratch. They can still be
compiled with the GCC compiler and link to the libraries (covered by
the LGPL which specifically allows commercial code to link such
library routines).

Furthermore FSF is not trying to sting Apple up front for a five
figure penalty, like Micro$oft (via BSA) did when an audit turned up
an unused computer in a store cupboard with a licencing issue at Ernie
Ball's guitar string factory.

On May 30, 1:50*am, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
> "peterwn" <pmiln...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:315eb17d-d226-43f0-9093-...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 2:02 pm, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >> It's no wonder that open source software can't get much traction. Just
> >> consider the stunt that the Free Software Foundation is pulling with
> >> GPL'd
> >> software distributed through the Apple's App Store.
>
> >>http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...unes-store-ter....
>
> >> Open source developers, it seems, are thrilled to gain access to Apple's
> >> App
> >> Store, one of the world's top distribution channels. But it seems the FSF
> >> Police aren't content to see those developers comply with the GPL terms
> >> and
> >> make source code available. No-o-o-o-o-o *-- they will have to withdraw
> >> their work from the Apple App Store, or Apple will be forced to pull
> >> them,
> >> because apparently Apple's terms and conditions place unspecified
> >> restrictions on what end users can do with the GPL'd software.
>
> >> Isn't Freedom great?!
>
> > It is most probable that Apple can arrange the software that any
> > 'commercially sensitive' parts are not subject to the GPL but these
> > parts would need to be written from scratch. They can still be
> > compiled with the GCC compiler and link to the libraries (covered by
> > the LGPL which specifically allows commercial code to link such
> > library routines).
>
> I'm guerssing Apple will just drop them from its store. *Hardly worth the
> trouble.
>
> > Furthermore FSF is not trying to sting Apple up front for a five
> > figure penalty, like Micro$oft (via BSA) did when an audit turned up
> > an unused computer in a store cupboard with a licencing issue at Ernie
> > Ball's guitar string factory.
>
> No, FSF is just screwing with open source developers to make an
> ideologically driven point. What else is new? Still, it's a shame that
> ideology has to get in the way of business.

You mean like Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer's idelogical dreams that
every computer must ship with Windows.

On 30/05/2010 6:19 p.m., whoisthis wrote:
..
>
> No, open source developers can, they will simply need to use other
> licences such as BSD, Apache and so on.

They can't take an existing GPL app and compile an iPhone version with a
different license though.
That would be *PIRACY* 11!!!!1111

On 30/05/2010 7:52 p.m., whoisthis wrote:
> In article<htt3dh$6gd$>,
> victor<> wrote:
>
>> On 30/05/2010 6:19 p.m., whoisthis wrote:
>> .
>>>
>>> No, open source developers can, they will simply need to use other
>>> licences such as BSD, Apache and so on.
>>
>> They can't take an existing GPL app and compile an iPhone version with a
>> different license though.
>> That would be *PIRACY* 11!!!!1111
>
> Which had nothing to do with Apple, unless of course you now feel that
> Apple should also be supplied with the code so they can check it. Mind
> you there has also been attempts to GPL existing BSD licensed code much
> to the authors disgust.


Which code would that be ?
Links please.

On May 30, 7:52*pm, whoisthis <w...@am.i.spammer> wrote:

>
> Which had nothing to do with Apple, unless of course you now feel that
> Apple should also be supplied with the code so they can check it. Mind
> you there has also been attempts to GPL existing BSD licensed code much
> to the authors disgust.

You mean that someone has taken BSD licenced code and enhanced it and
licenced the enhancements under the GPL. This has no effects at all on
the original BSD code. The 'enhancer' has no property rights over the
original code (except as allowed in the licence) and the original
author has no property rights over the enhancements (except as allowed
by the GPL. The original developer can treat the enhanced version as
an undesirable 'fork'.

On May 31, 5:53*am, whoisthis <w...@am.i.spammer> wrote:

>
> > You mean that someone has taken BSD licenced code and enhanced it and
> > licenced the enhancements under the GPL. This has no effects at all on
> > the original BSD code. The 'enhancer' has no property rights over the
> > original code (except as allowed in the licence) and the original
> > author has no property rights over the enhancements (except as allowed
> > by the GPL. The original developer can treat the enhanced version as
> > an undesirable 'fork'.
>
> No, I mean the licence was simply changed.

No. The licence on the original code was never changed. The modified
code is covered by the original licence wirh respect to the original
code and the modification overlay by the GPL. Granted, anyone using
the modified code would need to abide by both licences, which I
concede effectively means abiding by the GPL. What would brass the
original author off is having to abide by the GPL if he wishes to deal
with the modified code.

The devisers of the BSD licence did not see this sort of thing coming
or they could have forbade this in the licence terms.

On 31/05/2010 6:02 a.m., whoisthis wrote:
> In article<httbtj$gag$>,
> victor<> wrote:
>
>> On 30/05/2010 7:52 p.m., whoisthis wrote:
>>> In article<htt3dh$6gd$>,
>>> victor<> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 30/05/2010 6:19 p.m., whoisthis wrote:
>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> No, open source developers can, they will simply need to use other
>>>>> licences such as BSD, Apache and so on.
>>>>
>>>> They can't take an existing GPL app and compile an iPhone version with a
>>>> different license though.
>>>> That would be *PIRACY* 11!!!!1111
>>>
>>> Which had nothing to do with Apple, unless of course you now feel that
>>> Apple should also be supplied with the code so they can check it. Mind
>>> you there has also been attempts to GPL existing BSD licensed code much
>>> to the authors disgust.
>>
>>
>> Which code would that be ?
>> Links please.
>
> http://140.211.166.79/Linux/Clarifyi...th5k_Licensing

Not the same thing at all

On 31/05/2010 5:53 a.m., whoisthis wrote:
> In article
> <2fd038ab-9df0-4366-a83c->,
> peterwn<> wrote:
>
>> On May 30, 7:52 pm, whoisthis<w...@am.i.spammer> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Which had nothing to do with Apple, unless of course you now feel that
>>> Apple should also be supplied with the code so they can check it. Mind
>>> you there has also been attempts to GPL existing BSD licensed code much
>>> to the authors disgust.
>>
>> You mean that someone has taken BSD licenced code and enhanced it and
>> licenced the enhancements under the GPL. This has no effects at all on
>> the original BSD code. The 'enhancer' has no property rights over the
>> original code (except as allowed in the licence) and the original
>> author has no property rights over the enhancements (except as allowed
>> by the GPL. The original developer can treat the enhanced version as
>> an undesirable 'fork'.
>
> No, I mean the licence was simply changed.

You can't change the licence
The BSD licensing still exists and explicitly allows that portion of
code to be used in a derivative work regardless of the derivative works
license.