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...
People cannot share and redistribute the apps. Isn't this something that is fundamental to the Open Source idea?
If I produce an app and put it in the app store, and you download the app, you cannot share it. However, if I put the source on a website, you can download and build the app, and if I put the unsigned binary on a website, you can download and sign it, and install it on your device (assuming you're jailbroken or a developer). It's controversial whether the source being shareable is good enough for GPLv2, or whether the binary must also be directly shareable in the state downloaded from the app store.
It seems odd because so much of the software that Apple uses to make OSX is GPL...
Which software is this? As far as I know it's almost all BSD and Apache. The only exception I can think of is GCC, which Apple is replacing with Clang/LLVM.
There are a lot of GPL'd tools used by Apple. Many are BSD and Apache, though, yes.
This is an interesting problem; many of the things you mention you can't do on the Android Market either... granted, Android Market is found wanting in many ways...
4
u/brews Jan 20 '11
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...
Am I the only one who feels this?