On Wednesday 07 September 2011, Matt Giuca wrote:
[...]
http://lwn.net/Articles/396535/
In this situation, it was the Wesnoth team themselves that published
the game in the App Store (for a fee as well). Apparently the core
team were okay with it, but one of the contributors, Rusty Russell,
disagreed and raised a stink.
He has a point. What good is a license if some (but not all) of the
team can decide to violate it later on?
The game was released under the GPL. I don't see a license violation committed
by the release team.
In that case, I would still say it is a violation of the *spirit* of
the LGPL because it violates this nice symmetry of the FS developers
saying to the downstream developers (Slide Control, for example), "You
can make modifications to this software however you like, but when you
pass it on, you must extend the same freedom to your users."
And how do you know that they are modifying FS, and not respecting the license
terms?
I can't say whether it violates the letter of the LGPL (v2), since I'm
not a lawyer. But my reading of it (as I went into detail on here
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/fluid-dev/2010-09/msg00028.html)
Maybe you know much more than I, then. Is Paul Brossier, the guy that posted
that question, working for Rouet Production? Are them related somehow?
, is
that it's probably a violation of both Section 6 and 10. Section 6
says that you must "Accompany the work with ... the complete
machine-readable "work that uses the Library", as object code and/or
source code, so that the user can modify the Library and then relink
to produce a modified executable containing the modified Library" --
aside from requiring relinking, this also has the problem that most
users (those without an Apple developer license) will not have the
ability to produce a modified executable, so you cannot satisfy this
clause.
You need a compiler and some other tools to produce an executable in any platform. To
compile FluidSynth for Linux you need to accept a license of the GCC compiler as well,
which is also the official iOS and Mac OSX compiler, distributed by Apple under the GPL,
of course. You can download the Xcode package from Apple (containing GCC and other tools)
to build Mac and iOS applications, and it doesn't cost money. Note that
"gratis" is not required by the GPL, anyway.
Section 10 says that "You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted
herein," and the App Store does impose additional restrictions on the
use of the software.
And _this_is_the_real_problem_ with Apple's App Store. By distributing a GPL
program with additional restrictions, they are violating the GPL. Not the
program authors, or the release team, but Apple.
When the VLC developers (http://www.videolan.org) protested against Apple
because the distribution of VLC in the App Store was imposing restrictions on
top of the GPL, the reaction from Apple was to pull VLC from the store [1],
because Apple don't want to respect the rights given by the GPL to their
customers, and of course they don't want to face a copyright lawsuit either.
The same happened with GNU Go [2].
So, my opinion is that if you publish a GPL program in the Apple Store, you may
be losing your time because Apple will remove your product from the store as
soon as anybody raises his voice. There are other distribution channels for Mac
and iOS, anyway.
And of course any product including FluidSynth, released for iOS or any other
platform, must respect the LGPL license of FluidSynth, choosing a compatible
license [3].