Apple picks death not compliance for open source iPhone game

Interesting

"The FSF called the move "disappointing but unsurprising" saying Apple doesn't value people's independence and creativity."

Lemme repeat that with a few less words:

"saying Apple doesn't value people's independence and creativity."

"saying Apple doesn't value people's independence and creativity."

"saying Apple doesn't value people's independence and creativity."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Hey...

...what can I say, Steve sucks.

Not sent from an iPhone.

GPL Infections

Are bad for business.

FSF are just plain annoying.

I like the FSF, but sheesh

I like how the FSF stands up for software freedom, but their action here seems more than a little silly and petty. Look, if the code is open sourced, then the port would have to follow the same license, right (GPL, Apache, etc.)? And the app is free, right? So, you can get it from the App Store, and you can get the code, modify it, and submit your own version, right? What, exactly, has been limited here and how, exactly, as Apple shown that they don't care about freedom or creativity? What was prevented?

Many feel that Apple provides a convenience with their App Store. By picking this fight with Apple, the FSF has said "you must change your business model", which Apple very obviously wasn't going to do. All the FSF accomplished here was destroy the open source community's ability to develop really cool iPhone apps that "scratched an itch".

Yes, they can do it for Android, and i suppose if that is wildly successful, Apple will change their policies, but really, FSF, was this ultimately a necessary thing for you to gripe about?

GNU Go. Rly?

I can see how Apple's draconian, evil, restrictive, naughty & aggressive policies have stopped this game becoming the best -ever seller in the Apple store, nay, the best, most popular, most fun and most downloaded game OF ALL TIME.

I'm crushed.

Differences in the current monopolies.

Microsoft: "Where do you want to go today?"

Apple: "You, come over here!"

It sounds like a major difference, until you realise that both companies are trying to get you to use their software/hardware exclusively, via various means (undisclosed APIs, deep-linking software, breaking or not following standards, etc...)

Of the two, I'd say Apple is more "honest" and in-your-face about it.

No, I do not use Apple products and only use MS-branded products when I have to (although I do have a soft-spot for XPSP3, once I finish loading it with non-MS software)

Just as anticipated by the FSF

No surprise here. As FSF pointed out at the beginning,

"In most ways, this is a typical enforcement action for the FSF: we want to resolve this situation as amicably as possible. We have not sued Apple, nor have we sent them any legal demand that they remove the programs from the App Store... The only thing we're doing differently is making this announcement. Apple has a proven track record of blocking or disappearing programs from the App Store without explanation. So we want to provide everyone with these details about the case before that happens, and prevent any wild speculation."

"restraint of trade"

Here's hoping the FTC does something useful for once and Apple laywers start soiling their pants.

Would everyone stop listening to Stallman...please?

This is a guy who spent most of his life on the US government grant payroll, getting paid to hack in MIT's labs with taxpayer money. His attitude about software "freedom" makes perfect sense - if EVERYONE can be a hacker paid by taxpayer dollars.

Most of us have to work for a living and make money Richard. Families to support, kid's braces, college educations to pay for, housing to provide. And we don't want to fund your belief that everything should be "free". I expect to PAY for my software (and do), and compensate the coders that actually sweated into the keyboard to create it. And when I have good ideas I expect to be PAID for them - and as a consultant I well do.

This whole exercise is another episode of rms trying to scream "software wants to be free!". It's a grandstand activity, of no practical value except to try and posit Apple in a negative light by exploiting a conundrum in their legal language. I say conundrum because even if the downloader can only distribute to 5 devices, ANYONE can download a free app off AppStore themselves. Even conundrum gives it too much weight - it's more like a tempest in a teapot. All rms did was get a nice enough game removed from public iPhone distribution - yeah, because that's REALLY good for open software...duh!

creativity != programming

Saying Apple doesn't value independence and creativity is plain stupid, but only to be expected from a group who's tunnel vision equates these basic human values with computer programming ... nerds ..

el reg digs a deeper hole for itself

Ok, I'm probably more than a little ignorant, but why do these articles always take the stance that it was Jobs who decreed that an app doesn't meet the app store's policies. He's the CEO, I would think and hope that he has slightly more critical responsibilities than deciding who to piss off by what apps are approved or dis-approved. I would think that could be delegated to a few underlings. And what about published policy? I know they've gone against their own policy a few times, its expected, but in this case? Probably not.

My take on this article, follows the typical rant that once again the Reg has tried to create news where there isn't any. You're trying to start an anti-apple bandwagon by putting up article after article about how apple is evil. Yet lacking any real news, its just pure fail and makes you look stupid.

I just don't see this as news - the GNU Go game was already licensed under the GPL2 license, that conflicted with apples app store license - GNUGo informed apple of this conflict, apple did what they were supposed to do, remove the conflict. GNUGo didn't say 'lets send this to apple and see if they revert their policy'.

Its like copyright violation, if I find a photo I snap on the Register and you don't have permission, I have to inform you that you do not have appropriate permission. You then remove the offending photo or come to some term(s) of agreement.

This is news like telling me that its sunny and 85 out, when I'm already outside. C'mon el reg, you used to be good! Don't get me wrong, the pro apple articles from Orlowski(?) make me just as sick.

(A stupid yank from across the pond)

And who lost?

So folks with iPhones lost the ability to play a good, free open source game. And the farts at FSF think this is a good thing? Or were they truly so naive that they thought that Apple will make an exception in this case?