[Incubator] question about QField and iOS app store

[Greg Troxel]

Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> writes:

> 1) We actually welcome participation by anyone. If you care to vote it will
> be marked down as "community support" - not count towards passing the
> motion, just good will :)

OK, that's fine.  I should say that I have used QField (on android, as
it happens) and I think it's great.

> 2) What is your source for iOS app store not allowing free or open-source
> software? There is a Firefox app for example ...

The app store as I understand does not allow copyleft software.  The
terms that the users agree to do not allow users to make copies of the
binaries they get and give them to others.

  https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement

and today's terms at

  https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/terms.html

which talks about one cannot install on more than 5 devices and cannot
transfer copies.

There is talk about a license from the vendor, but

  https://apps.apple.com/us/app/qfield-for-qgis/id1531726814

does not mention that the app is GPL and that the user has the right to
copy and distribute, and the right to obtain source code.
(I realize that the source code is clearly available.)

More links:

  https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1762/is-the-mozilla-public-license-compatible-with-apples-app-store
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_and_open-source_iOS_applications
  https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/6109/is-it-possible-to-have-gpl-software-in-the-mac-app-store
  https://github.com/nextcloud/ios/blob/master/COPYING.iOS
  https://www.techspot.com/news/41908-apple-removes-vlc-app-from-app-store-gpl-to-blame.html
  https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-avoid-public-gpl-floggings-on-apples-app-store/
  https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/8674/gpl-with-license-exception-for-ios

Yes, a lot are old, but I have viewed "apple's terms are incompatible
with the GPL" as a settled questions for years.  The bulk of web hits
searching support the notion that this is settled.

Mozilla licenses under MPL2, which is a non-copyleft Free Software
license.  So firefox as is goes *into* the app store is Free and Open
Source and as it comes *out* to the user is proprietary, limited by app
store terms.  That's ok because MPL2 permits that -- but GPL does not.


So I think this is obvious that it is as best unclear, and that
distributing GPL code (with copyright not held by the distributor)
requires an argument that it is permissible, specifically about how the
additional terms Apple imposes are not in conflict with the GPL
requirement that there be no additional terms.

An example in the current terms is

  b. Consent to Use of Data: You agree that Licensor may collect and use
  technical data and related information—including but not limited to
  technical information about your device, system and application
  software, and peripherals—that is gathered periodically to facilitate
  the provision of software updates, product support, and other services
  to you (if any) related to the Licensed Application. Licensor may use
  this information, as long as it is in a form that does not personally
  identify you, to improve its products or to provide services or
  technologies to you.

which changes the terms from "just GPL" to "something else".  So even
that is incompatible.

Another example is

  a. Scope of License: Licensor grants to you a nontransferable license to
  use the Licensed Application on any Apple-branded products that you own
  or control and as permitted by the Usage Rules. The terms of this
  Standard EULA will govern any content, materials, or services accessible
  from or purchased within the Licensed Application as well as upgrades
  provided by Licensor that replace or supplement the original Licensed
  Application, unless such upgrade is accompanied by a Custom EULA. Except
  as provided in the Usage Rules, you may not distribute or make the
  Licensed Application available over a network where it could be used by
  multiple devices at the same time. You may not transfer, redistribute or
  sublicense the Licensed Application except as expressly permitted in
  this Agreement and, if you sell your Apple Device to a third party, you
  must remove the Licensed Application from the Apple Device before doing
  so. You may not copy (except as permitted by this license and the Usage
  Rules), reverse-engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code
  of, modify, or create derivative works of the Licensed Application, any
  updates, or any part thereof (except as and only to the extent that any
  foregoing restriction is prohibited by applicable law or to the extent
  as may be permitted by the licensing terms governing use of any
  open-sourced components included with the Licensed Application).

which again is different from the GPL's terms.


So perhaps there is a "custom EULA" whose terms are "GPL2, exactly" and
thus the user who receives the app is legally authorized to distribute
copies (even if the software won't let them).  But as someone who
installed QField on an iPad, I did not become aware of those terms.

> I know OSGeo has purchased an apple certificate on occasion so we could
> digitally sign applications for macOS. Same deal for windows environment.

Sure; that's orthogonal to the license issue.  That's about certifying
that the bits people get are the bits that the project published.

> I think this is good advocacy for taking free and open source software into
> environments where people are. Digital signing in particular is nice as it
> builds a relationship of trust.

That's also an orthogonal point.  Certainly sometimes people choose a
permissive license to allow proprietary derived works.  But sometimes
people choose copyleft to force people to choose between making derived
works and not being able to use the code.   I am not trying to offer an
opinion on the wisdom of the two approaches.