Re: LGPL code in the Mac App Store?
Re: LGPL code in the Mac App Store?
- Subject: Re: LGPL code in the Mac App Store?
- From: Eric Wing <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 17:28:01 -0800
>
> One thing I forget to add; probably the *very best way* to address this
> issue is to contact the library author and say, “Hey, I want to use your
> LGPL code in my Mac app and put it on the App Store; is that ok? Do you mind
> if people can’t dynamically link their own copy, because really, no one will
> want to?” (Unfortunately, that hasn’t been an option for me to date.)
>
> Cheers,
> Demitri
Some points that have not already been said:
- There are some (less common) interpretations of the L(GPL) that
Apple is technically on the hook for dealing with the license because
_they_ are the ones technically “distributing” the software. Under
this interpretation, Apple could be held accountable for upholding the
terms of the GPL. That’s why the original question about whether Apple
has a problem with L(GPL) is actually a good/fair/interesting question
because we all know they don’t want to deal with it. In practice, the
rule of dealing with Apple as a developer is don’t embarrass Apple.
This specific issue doesn’t come up that often and there are usually
other terms in the L(GPL) that kill projects before it gets to this
phase. But if Apple gets pushed into the limelight, be assured they
will simply take down your app and end the controversy. And also in
practice, I’ve heard of L(GPL) software in the App Store, so in
general I don’t think it’s a major issue.
- Contacting the author is a good idea. Not everybody picks the LGPL
for the same reason. While there are some deep into the free software
philosophy, there are others (e.g. Linus Torvalds) who picked it
simply because they wanted to give out software but also make sure
they could get back any improvements you might make. Some people pick
it so they can upsell you a commercial license (e.g. Qt). And then
there are a lot of people who picked it because they were told it was
‘the in-thing to do’ without really understanding the details of the
license. (And to be fair, pre-app store days before codesigning were a
lot simpler to think about.) Finding out what the author wants will
also tell you how much trouble you might have. (See next point)
- Only the license holder(s) have standing to file a claim against
you. So if you find that the license holder doesn’t care, then you
won’t have any problems. Conversely, if the author is deep into the
philosophy, then you should find out if this is a problem for them
because if it is, they can cause you problems. (Do be aware that some
software has multiple license holders so you may need hunt down
multiple people.)
- Some authors also are willing to relicense or grant you a special
license (sometimes for money). Contacting and negotiating will allow
you to go down this path.
- Your worst case is a license holder who really dislikes you or Apple
might try to take down your app. This is why contacting to evaluate
them is a good idea. However, unless you are a big known company or a
really high profile app that makes you a target, likely nobody will
want to go to court, especially if you’ve been trying your best to
comply to the terms of the license (e.g dynamically linking the
library, offering a non-MAS store version to buyers, and the other
things said in this thread). Proving “damages” is a really hard thing
in this case so it’s not clear if they could win any money from
you…merely just cease & desist. And because there is so much ambiguity
in the license for this case, it is not FSF’s or anybody else’s
interest to establish potentially bad case law precedent for such
minor issues because if a ruling goes against the L(GPL), it would
permanently hurt it.
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden