undefined | Better HN

0 pointstorstenvl2y ago0 comments

> it's not possible to distribute a binary containing *GPL code on iOS in any way remotely in keeping with the letter of the license.

That is quite audacious to claim.

Do you have a citation to any case law supporting your position?

If not, what would be your argument?

0 comments

ajross2y ago

It's in the text of the license? See section 6. a)

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.0.en.html

Also of course section 9: "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Library or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License."

You can't legally put copyleft stuff on the App store, because the recipient can't modify the results. That we've all as a society decided to look the other way doesn't change the requirements of the license.

torstenvlOP2y ago

So no case law.

You've pointed me to two sections of the license, but neither directly says what you're claiming. Why don't you help us understand what your argument would be? I.e., explain how you would apply the rules in the license to the facts of iOS distribution to reach the conclusion that distribution on iOS is a per se violation?

ajross2y ago

> explain how you would apply the rules in the license to the facts of iOS distribution to reach the conclusion that distribution on iOS is a per se violation?

That's analysis is exactly backwards, and I cited the specific text in the license that calls it out. You can't distributed copyrighted works without permission, period.

Apple can't ship my code, whether it be directly or in a Play Store app, unless I let them. The LGPL specifies the terms of that permission. They're clearly in violation, since I can't download a Play Store app and modify it.

Again, we all agree to ignore this. But it's true nonetheless.

torstenvlOP2y ago

I'm sorry, but "issue-rule-application-conclusion" is the standard analytical framework for questions of this nature. You may feel that it's "backwards" but it is, objectively, simply how this works.

There is no text in the license that discusses the issue of app stores. You have every right to jump to the conclusion without any analysis of how the text of the license applies to these facts. However, you'll of course understand that—by doing so—you aren't likely to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

1 more reply

kelnos2y ago

There is -- for better or worse -- precious little case law on the GPL and LGPL. All we have to go on is the advice of lawyers and our own judgment.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

ajross2y ago

It's in the text of the license? See section 6. a)

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.0.en.html

torstenvlOP2y ago

So no case law.

ajross2y ago

> explain how you would apply the rules in the license to the facts of iOS distribution to reach the conclusion that distribution on iOS is a per se violation?

That's analysis is exactly backwards, and I cited the specific text in the license that calls it out. You can't distributed copyrighted works without permission, period.

Again, we all agree to ignore this. But it's true nonetheless.

torstenvlOP2y ago

I'm sorry, but "issue-rule-application-conclusion" is the standard analytical framework for questions of this nature. You may feel that it's "backwards" but it is, objectively, simply how this works.

1 more reply

kelnos2y ago

There is -- for better or worse -- precious little case law on the GPL and LGPL. All we have to go on is the advice of lawyers and our own judgment.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse