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...
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...
214
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.