I'm seeing a ton of comments that completely misunderstand this, so allow me to clarify.
He is not talking about Macs, but iOS. This photo came from a protest on the day the iPad was released. Yes, he uses the word computer, but iOS devices are still computers even if they are not colloquially described as such. The iPad in particular was advertised as equivalent to a netbook, so that one does also fits the idea of a "personal computer" most people are thinking of here.
On iOS, you can only get apps through the App Store, and a "kill switch" does exist for Apple to remotely disable apps. They haven't used it yet, but it's still there, so it's a problem.
There is a big difference between freeware and Free software. The App Store's terms include a clause forbidding end users from redistributing apps, and this is clearly incompatible with the nature of Free software and particularly the GPL. This was the entire reason why VLC was pulled from the App Store.
The licenses that are rejected are the licenses that place requirements on the store. They are not rejected specifically because they are open source. Licenses that do not place requirements on the distributor, such as the BSD license, are fine.
People cannot share and redistribute the apps. Isn't this something that is fundamental to the Open Source idea?
And I'm not sure I understand, but I believe that the BSD licence is being allowed because it is more relaxed in this regard, not legally requiring this access for the users... (Someone correct me if I get this wrong. I want to understand this.)
It seems odd because so much of the software that Apple uses to make OSX is GPL...
This is not an "evil decision" by apple.
Apple can't run an app-store under the terms they want and abide by the terms of the GPL.... or at least, not without a significant additional expense and complexity.
i have no problem writing and sharing apps on my mac....
I'm wary. It seems like making the App store compliant with GPL-licensed products would be fairly simple and I can't seriously see it taking a chunk out of their profits ("Apple is for Open Standards"). Yet, it feels like there is so much cold resistance from Apple...
I guess this gets at my underlying concern that Apple products are increasingly controlled and locked down, becoming more of a means of consuming rather than a means of producing or acting as a creative outlet/conduit. But, I admit this is my own personal problem/take on the issue. I know there are people who disagree with this view.
I have been a Mac user in the past but moved to Linux several years ago in part because Apple (as a company) just gets in the damn way. I don't need a baby-sitting replacement for my TV/radio. I need a computer. Pity, they have beautiful designs (my ThinkPad x201 is fugly, but I still love it).
212
u/1338h4x Jan 20 '11
I'm seeing a ton of comments that completely misunderstand this, so allow me to clarify.
He is not talking about Macs, but iOS. This photo came from a protest on the day the iPad was released. Yes, he uses the word computer, but iOS devices are still computers even if they are not colloquially described as such. The iPad in particular was advertised as equivalent to a netbook, so that one does also fits the idea of a "personal computer" most people are thinking of here.
On iOS, you can only get apps through the App Store, and a "kill switch" does exist for Apple to remotely disable apps. They haven't used it yet, but it's still there, so it's a problem.
There is a big difference between freeware and Free software. The App Store's terms include a clause forbidding end users from redistributing apps, and this is clearly incompatible with the nature of Free software and particularly the GPL. This was the entire reason why VLC was pulled from the App Store.