This is as it should be. You cannot create an ecosystem that is diametrically opposed to every principle the FSF has ever stood for, and then expect to be able to distribute GPL licensed code from it. I'm actually glad to see the GPL working.
Exactly. I contribute code to GPL-licensed projects, and I don't want the users of my code to be unable to fix it; it's simply not fair to distribute software that the end-users are not allowed to tweak and improve. When you distribute software on the App Store, the users get the changes I made, but I never get the chance to get changes that they would have made. Hence, a license that prohibits this unfairness is necessary, and the GPL fits the bill.
Don't get me wrong, I am fine with software that is BSD- or MIT- licensed. But I think for the best culture of contribution and sharing, you need to clearly set your expectations in the form of a license, and the GPL does exactly that.
If Apple wants the world of GPL'd code to be available on their devices, the solution is simple -- allow side-loading.
Why are people that purchase/download your GPL app not able to get the code or share changes? All one must do is provide a method for the client to get the code through whatever means. The section deals with third party distribution of binaries and obtaining the source code from the author indirectly. There is nothing stopping one from getting hold of the SDK and compiling the code you have distributed and installing it - they don't even need a developers account. They can't distribute it without paying Apple the developer's fee and submitting it to the app store, at which point it might be considered duplicate functionality, but, that is a separate argument.
Additionally, a client that changes your app is not required to send you the changes back unless s/he distributes it. Modifying it for his/her own purposes doesn't mean you are entitled to a copy of their changes.
Well, actually you do need to have a developer account to install builds on any iOS device. The 99$ fee is necessesary even for installs on your own device.
I guess they have their reasons for not just opening up provisioning for everybody, although doing that would sure help them win over the open source crowd (not that they really care about that in any way).
You know, I don't think that Apple deliberately sat down and decided to create an anti-FSF platform.
I think they sat down and tried to create a platform that would be commercially viable, but wouldn't descend into anarchy, e.g. would stay 'family friendly'. In order to ensure that, they need to maintain control. But hey, a bunch of control freaks picked a system that would maximise their control... news at 11 everyone.
Funnily enough, the GPL is also a walled garden environment. You can tell that they'd really prefer to have a system where everything (in their system) was GPLed. Please note the distinction here, they're not saying that everyone should or has to GPL their software, they're saying that if you bring your toys to their sandpit, you have to share... and they don't care what happens in that other sandpit, everyone else can go hang. If you don't like it, go play in the other sandpit where no one shares.
Therefore I am of the opinion that it is perilously close to hypocrisy for GPL fans to complain about walled gardens. The old saying about people who live in glass houses applies here I think.
> Funnily enough, the GPL is also a walled garden environment
That's quite a stretched definition of walled garden. GPL is easy: We believe consumers have rights. If you want to use software we write as parts of yours, we forbid you to disrespect those rights. Simple as that. Yes - their rights are more important than yours. It's not about the kids playing in the sandpit. It has always been about the kids that use - and have to rely on - the toys the kids in the sandpit make.
Why does RMS's bio have anything to this discussion? I am talking about the rights of users to be independent from the programmers who write the code they use, not the beliefs of someone who happens to agree with me on some subjects (and disagree on others)
I think your, to use some of the language you so cleverly brought up, sad misunderstanding of the dynamics at play pretty much demonstrates you don't enjoy a solid grasp of what is involved here and the consequences of licenses like the GPL.
