18

TL;DR: The legal incompatibilities between the GPL and the App store TOS don't apply to the MPL, but there is no saying whether Apple will allow your MPL licensed app. First off, what Apple allows and doesn't allow in their app store is entirely up to Apple. As far as I know, they reserve the right to refuse any app for any reason whatsoever. Therefore, it ...


11

It certainly sucks when people take your work and use it in ways against your permission, like copying your copyleft work without also sharing their changes. Fortunately you don't have to go straight to the lawyers, as there are a number of things you can do, and also some things to check, to be safe. Is it worth it? Copyright infringement for software is ...


7

You're most certainly allowed to edit it. That's one of the cornerstones of all free and open software. However, you must also make your edited version available as source code under the same terms as the original library. That's one of the cornerstones of copyleft licenses (such as the Lesser GPL). Use the software in a free manner, and in return give any ...


6

If the copyright of the application is entirely yours, then you do have the option to use the GPL, somewhat contrary to the answer by Martijn. This is more intended as a substitute solution, but Martijn's answer clearly explains why the software may be rejected between the licenses. As you release something, you still maintain complete ownership of the ...


5

Having skimmed the apple store TOS I found an interesting passage (emph mine): a. Scope of License: This license granted to you for the Licensed Application by Licensor is limited to a nontransferable license to use the Licensed Application on any Apple-branded products running iOS (including but not limited to iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch) (“iOS ...


4

Creative Commons does not recommend applying their licenses to software. You seem like you might know this already, but it's worth linking again. if some platform decides "for some obscure legal reason, GPL software is not allowed" What makes you worry about the GPL specifically? What is there to say that the platform will say "CC-BY-ND is not allowed", ...


4

You can’t. A license that allows this restriction can’t be a FLOSS license. For example, as far as the use of the software is concerned: It would violate "freedom 0" of the Free Software Definition: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose For the Open Source Definition, see the FAQ Can I restrict how people use an Open Source ...


4

I have no intention of trying to argue with rms about this (or any other GPL-related) issue. But I think there's an interesting difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 that gives rise to a new line of approach to the issue. The previous issue with Apple was, as the OP notes, GPLv2-specific. GPLv2's handling of additional obligations being placed on ...


4

I emailed Mr. Richard Stallman, the primary author of the GPL, for his opinion on this issue. I received the following reply: I studied this question for a while. It is clear that that matter of distribution violates GPLv3 overall. However, I couldn't be sure what courts might say. To work out the answer would require a very capable lawyer.


3

To the best of my knowledge, there is no such foundation. Such a foundation would also face the following difficulties: where open source apps exist, the app's original maintainer has likely already published it. Re-publishing it through the foundation will – in general – only lead to unnecessary duplication and may be rejected during the app store's review....


2

In the described situation, you are copyright holder (at least in part), unless you assigned the rights to your contributions to some other entity. So you are in position to take legal action. You will have to check if the stipulations of the license were followed, in MPL's case that any changes to MPLed files are public if I'm not mistaken. They might very ...


2

If you're the sole copyright holder of a work (or you have signed CLAs from everyone) would dual licensing the app be enough? In any case, one license that might work is The Q Public License The Q Public license seems to allow free distribution of unmodified software: You may copy and distribute the Software in unmodified form provided that the ...


2

If you just want to exclude App Store distribution, you don't have to modify the license. Just use the GPLv3, because the App Store terms of service are incompatible with the GPLv3. It should not be possible to have your GPLv3 app in the App Store. Article from the FSF: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement Each ...


1

If there's nothing otherwise prohibiting you, you may publish your app code to a public git repository under any license you choose and even with no accompanying license at all. With regard to copyright it depends on applicable laws. In the United States, for example, copyright is automatic and a transfer of that copyright cannot be executed without a ...


1

This is ultimately an answer for Apple to provide. The GPL-FE allows it use in documents without much obligation. If I were you I would create a minimal app with very explicit and clear embedding of the font under GPL + GPL-FE including license and notices and post that to the app store to see if Apple bans it or not.


1

As far as I'm aware, it is. The primary reason why Apple don't allow GPL'd apps into their store is the fact that no additional restrictions may be applied. As stated in both other answers so far, this includes both Apple's TOS, and the fact that the TOS effectively disallows conveying the license along with the program. With GPL, the license effectively ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible