undefined | Better HN

0 pointstorstenvl2y ago0 comments

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?

0 comments

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.

ajross2y ago

> I'm sorry, but "issue-rule-application-conclusion" is the standard analytical framework for questions of this nature.

Do you, heh, have any case law to that effect? No, that's silly. "You're shipping my code and have to stop" is an open and shut case. That no one has bothered to prosecute such a case against an iOS app is notable, but not proof of anything but inertia.

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

> 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.

ajross2y ago

> I'm sorry, but "issue-rule-application-conclusion" is the standard analytical framework for questions of this nature.

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