Stockfish clones in the AppStore: it's becoming a plague...

[stevenaaus]

Also, the GPL stipulates that source must be distributed.

These market places generally ignore this for two reasons.

1. Their deceitfulness will be revealed
2. They don't want other lowlife doing the same thing as themselves.

Go ask them for the source code for me will you
It should be prominent.

[Steve Maughan]

Hi Steven,

See above re deceit by omission.

As for the support issue. It's not clear if the seller can or cannot support the product. So since we don't know, we certainly cannot pass judgment on them.

Steve

[Steve Maughan]

All of my comments assume that the author has complied with the GPL. If they haven't then they are in the wrong.

[stevenaaus]

I understand your position.
Charging for GPLed programs is allowable.

But seriously, please ask a couple of them for the source code for me.

I am the project owner of the GPLed Hammer of Thyrion project which was cloned by someone on Android. His project had bad reviews and multiple unresolved bug reports, he refused to provide source (we tried repeatedly as my co-programmer is a perfectionist and was curious), and he had multiple cloned projects, all of which had no source and were often broken.
After months/years(?), the Apps were removed for GPL breach and author deregistered.

[jdart]

Not to single anyone out, but I am amazed reading this thread how many have little understanding of GPL, or copyright.

If you own the software (have the copyright) and the software is released under GPL, you can re-license it under any license you want, compatible with GPL, or not. GPL prohibits other people from doing this, but not the owner. For example, mySQL can be obtained under a GPL license but you can also pay for a commercial license from the owner, Oracle, that exempts you from GPL requirements (http://mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/oem/#4).

So, if the App Store rules are incompatible with GPL that is not a problem, as long as the copyright owner is releasing it under the App Store agreement. If someone else does that, they are violating GPL and probably you can get Apple to take them down. although I don't have experience with Apple's policies. (I think going through Apple is a better route than trying to call them out directly for a GPL violation, because unless you want to hire a lawyer and sue, there is little you can actually do about that).

Btw., there is nothing in GPL itself that prohibits selling GPL software, even though it may be obtainable elsewhere for free, if you comply with the other GPL requirements. (As noted though App Store has other rules).

[JuLieN]

Not to single anyone out, but I am amazed reading this thread how many have little understanding of GPL, or copyright.

If you own the software (have the copyright) and the software is released under GPL, you can re-license it under any license you want, compatible with GPL, or not. GPL prohibits other people from doing this, but not the owner. For example, mySQL can be obtained under a GPL license but you can also pay for a commercial license from the owner, Oracle, that exempts you from GPL requirements (http://mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/oem/#4).

So, if the App Store rules are incompatible with GPL that is not a problem, as long as the copyright owner is releasing it under the App Store agreement. If someone else does that, they are violating GPL and probably you can get Apple to take them down. although I don't have experience with Apple's policies. (I think going through Apple is a better route than trying to call them out directly for a GPL violation, because unless you want to hire a lawyer and sue, there is little you can actually do about that).

Btw., there is nothing in GPL itself that prohibits selling GPL software, even though it may be obtainable elsewhere for free, if you comply with the other GPL requirements. (As noted though App Store has other rules).

Jon, I hope you didn't address those remarks to me, otherwise you wouldn't get my point: I didn't say it is illegal (I didn't even wonder). I didn't wonder either if this was compliant with GPL. I only said it was unethical. My remarks were based on morality only. Now, regarding legality, if it can be proven that those persons were trying to deceive their customers, then that would also be illegal in many countries. But that's another story.

[jdart]

But I am saying it actually is illegal, to distribute a clone in the App Store.

Selling GPL software in some other fashion is kind of a theoretical discussion (I don't think this is common) but you might want to see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html.

--Jon

[JuLieN]

But I am saying it actually is illegal, to distribute a clone in the App Store.

Selling GPL software in some other fashion is kind of a theoretical discussion (I don't think this is common) but you might want to see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html.

--Jon

Jon, I am NOT at all discussing GPL That is not my concern at all. Other people here are discussing that.

The only time when I mentioned GPL was to say that selling such programs with no added value at all and with concealing to the customers the fact that they can get this software for free under its original name is "highly unethical" (not illegal). So this is not my discussion at all. But if some people here want to discuss that, sure, please do: but I won't jump into this conversation.

[jdart]

Ok, my comments were not directed specifically at you (A good part of the thread is about GPL, and is confused, IMO). RMS doesn't think it is unethical but I'm not sure I agree.

--Jon

[Steve Maughan]

Hi Jon,

All of my comments assume that the seller is in compliance with the GPL license. If indeed the App Store violates the GPL license then I think Apple should taker this up. And I do think that the clones devalue the App Store. But then again, they are getting 30% of the revenue.

If a GPL App Store app provide a link to the source in the About screen would that satisfy the license?

Best regards,

Steve