[Incubator] question about QField and iOS app store

Thu Apr 27 17:35:48 PDT 2023

Greg:

I see, you are correct that my points about digitally signing are
orthogonal.

License issues are tricky, but important as each community chooses a
license to foster the kind of sharing environment they desire for their
project.

As an example: Java makes use of a CLASSPATH exception to GPL to allow Java
(an otherwise GPL "application") to run free, open and proprietary software
in the Java environment. This allows the core to remain GPL, while
acting as a platform for others.
--
Jody Garnett

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 5:16 PM Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20230427/b1ddcde7/attachment-0001.htm>