On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:17 AM, Richard Fontana fontana@sharpeleven.org wrote:
On 09/27/2012 02:47 AM, Kuno Woudt wrote:
A license which is currently "missing" on that spectrum is a copyleft license compatible with the current popular app stores.
The microsoft and apple app stores are fairly hostile toward free software developers, but they do have a considerable market share. So I think there are free software developers who would be interested in a license which achieves the aims of copyleft insofar that is allowed by the common app store agreements.
Has anyone given this any thought?
I haven't thought about it (until now) in connection with copyleft-next, but this is a good suggestion to consider. The problem seems analogous to the problem that the old GPL system library exception was trying to solve (or clarify).
For what it is worth, I don't think that this should be something "along the spectrum" of licenses; it should be possible even with strong copyleft licenses, assuming a "neutral" app store (i.e., one that does not impose additional technical or legal restrictions). But I also think copyleft.next takes care of this as already drafted. e.g., as far as I know, most app stores would:
* comply with the first two points Sec. 4 of copyleft.next (which really should be (a) and (b) for ease of reference, Richard, not bullet points)
* comply with Sec. 5 (the only arguable derived work the store is distributing is the binary; they're not otherwise modifying the work, so this should present no obstacle for the stores)
* comply with Sec. 6 (note that this really isn't something you can "comply" with; it's not really a condition so I think perhaps the reference to it in the third bullet of Sec. 4 is incorrect?)
* comply with Sec. 8(b), presuming that the person who uploads to the app store ensures that "clear directions" are present and that distribution from a web location is considered a "reasonably equivalent manner" to an app store (which IMHO it should be).
Sec. 7 is the tricky one. As long as some requirement of that sort is maintained (which I think it must be, or else you open a gaping loophole in the license) then each app store has to be evaluated separately with regards to both their legal and technical policies, to see if they introduce further restrictions. But that's a concern for particular app stores, not the concept of app stores generally.
Luis
On 09/27/2012 10:42 AM, Luis Villa wrote:
For what it is worth, I don't think that this should be something "along the spectrum" of licenses; it should be possible even with strong copyleft licenses, assuming a "neutral" app store [...]
That is our equivalent of "assume a spherical cow" [0]
There is already good evidence that the most popular "app stores" are not, in fact, neutral.
As much as we may dislike copyright aggregation and proprietary relicensing that may be the only approach for an (otherwise) open source program to enter an "app store".
Better than legal shenanigans to get into an "app store" would be a technical solution of delivering rich applications continuously to all devices which support HTML5.
Regards,
--Tom
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Tom Marble tmarble@info9.net wrote:
On 09/27/2012 10:42 AM, Luis Villa wrote:
For what it is worth, I don't think that this should be something "along the spectrum" of licenses; it should be possible even with strong copyleft licenses, assuming a "neutral" app store [...]
That is our equivalent of "assume a spherical cow" [0]
There is already good evidence that the most popular "app stores" are not, in fact, neutral.
I think it would be great to discuss specific examples of this non-neutrality, and see if and how the license should respond to them. I imagine, as I said in the email, that these problems will all be with regards to Sec. 7 of the draft, but if there are problems with regards to other sections, they would be useful to discuss as well.
Without specific examples, it's hard to have a useful or constructive discussion.
Luis
On 09/27/2012 01:01 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
I think it would be great to discuss specific examples of this non-neutrality, and see if and how the license should respond to them. I imagine, as I said in the email, that these problems will all be with regards to Sec. 7 of the draft, but if there are problems with regards to other sections, they would be useful to discuss as well.
To the degree copyleft-next could respond to them I think it is a useful effort.
Without specific examples, it's hard to have a useful or constructive discussion.
The tone of my e-mail was based on the frustrations I have read about. I am assuming that "app store" acceptance is largely based on business decisions (rather than objective criteria). Unfortunately I cannot provide specific examples and I don't want to hinder the discussion.
Respectfully,
--Tom
copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org