The practicalities of the hypothetical notwithstanding, it is just there to prove a point -- a retailer cannot completely protect itself from copyright violations by having the seller sign such an agreement.

I'm not saying Apple is conclusively liable for anything, I'm just saying from the given facts, there is some potential.

On another note, Apple is quite familiar with the GPL and the use of "Gnu" to describe certain free programs. I'm not sure Apple would have to examine the source code very closely to realize that a program called "GnuGo" was subject to a GPL license.

This would require that the source code correctly contain such information. Since the developer was clearly in violation of the GPL, it's likely that his source code did not contain that information. As for the name Gnu, I don't think one should assume that everyone working on approving iTunes Store apps is aware of the usage of that name.

EDIT: I just checked with a friend who's with a software company. When you submit an app to the iTunes Store, you don't provide source code. Apple checks symbols in the code, however, to see if private frameworks are being used, because that's something they don't allow. But they don't check the code itself.

EDIT 2: Apple seems to have already removed GnuGo from the App Store. So the argument is moot now.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

My point was that Apple should probably know that "GnuGo" is GPL'd without needing to look at the source code. That Apple has incompetent employees isn't an excuse.

Well, there are probably hundreds of people approving apps. It's very likely that they don't have a list of keywords (other than curse words) to check. Given that their terms and conditions clearly state that developers cannot submit apps that are under licenses like GPL means that the developer is the one who is at fault.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Now we're getting into the weeds, and also circling around a bit. I will repeat: I'm not saying they are certainly liable. It is entirely possible that the facts are such that they are not. My posts, and my initial post in particular, are focused on undermining one of your basic assumptions that you again repeat. In response to your last comment: a retailer cannot push all responsibility off to a provider. It will depend on the specific facts of the case. YouTube, for example, generally can not blame its users for copyright infringement--even if the posts violate the YouTube TOU. If the fact that something is GPL'd is sufficiently obscure that the retailer, acting reasonably, would not have reason to know it is GPL'd, then liability might not accrue. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

Also, do you work for Apple, or are you just a huge fan?

I won't go further into this mess and address more specific facts without someone paying my fee.

The FSF has posted a follow-up to the announcement from yesterday. In it they discuss the details of where the App Store Terms of Service and the GPL conflict. They also mention that, as expected, Apple has pulled the GnuGo app rather than modify the terms of service to allow GPL software.

From the article:
"We would've liked to see Apple do the right thing and remove these limits, but it looks like that's not going to happen. Apple has removed GNU Go from the App Store, continuing their longstanding habit of preventing users from doing anything that Apple doesn't want them to do. As we said in our initial announcement, this is disappointing but unsurprising; Apple made this choice a long time ago. We just need to make sure everybody else gets the message: if you value your independence and creativity, you should be aware that Apple doesn't. Take your computing elsewhere."

Yeah, but their bottom line is maintaining enhanced user experience. I just can't imagine any other reason...

By the way, whenever I get pulled over on the highway for speeding, I simply tell the state partol officer that I wasn't aware I was going 85 in a 65. The officer immediately apologizes for taking up my valuable time and lets me happily go on my way. I love when that happens.

_________________
"This is a game that rewards patience and balance. You must think like a man of action and act like a man of thought."
-Jonas Skarssen

That sort of reads like it was written by Monty Python. Aside from what's wrong in what they say, it's a publicity stunt by a group that is ignored by 97% of computer users. They're basically saying, "Hey, huge tech company, you have to do what we say, or we'll call you ninnies." They need to grow up.

The FSF has a habit of, um, exaggerating. For example:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/ogg-vers ... e-fud/2086

They're a sort of fundamentalist group, that has the same problems of any other fundamentalist group. They repeat their tirades long enough until they believe them.

Now I'm not against the idea of free software; I just find the FSF to be very bad advocates for "freedom."

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

This feels like it strays into fanboy territory. There's nothing laughable about a smaller organisation with specific principles doing its best to get recognition by pointing out publicly something a larger organisation has done wrong. The FSF's action seems perfectly reasonable, to me.

The FSF has been doing this type of stuff for ages, it's their raison d'etre. Instead of trying to convince people to use FOSS (free and open source software) on its merits, they attack other companies. It's the equivalent of negative advertising in politics. If they really have something to say, let them get rid of their bile and say it in a positive manner. They just come off like whiners, and every chance they get to do a publicity stunt like this, they jump on it.

As I said above, free software has many merits. But the FSF's attitude is far too fundamentalist for me.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Actually, I thought they put it very nicely and succinctly. I thought their points and use of wording was very reasonable, regardless of whether I agree with them or not.

Yeah, I thought the FSF handled this well. We all know by now that I'm not an open-source fanatic , but in this case they said:

FSF: "Hey everybody, an app in Apple's market is the GPL. Let's hope they change their licence so that GPL apps can be there!"
Apple: "Nah, we'll just pull that app."
FSF: "Darn."

Seems a pretty reasonable thing for them to do, if you ask me. They didn't go crazy with threats or anything. Just pointed out the problem, when apple took the solution that the FSF didn't prefer, they didn't criticize much...just said they'd prefer it another way. Not bad at all.

No, Kirk. Attacking is made of real, legal threats. It isn't made of calm reminders of something you've done wrong. The FSF could easily have attacked Apple in this way, though of course it would have been even more unproductive.

I honestly can't see where the bile is in anything the FSF have done here. Indeed, what could be more positive than 'We've noticed your terms and conditions stop certain types of software being in your store. Could you change them?'

Will you tell me that I'm fundamentalist and bilious for lamenting Apple's own long history of legal threats?

While I'm not decided whether I agree with them either, regarding putting it nicely this sentence: "Apple has removed GNU Go from the App Store, continuing their longstanding habit of preventing users from doing anything that Apple doesn't want them to do." is one of the emptiest and least succinct I've read in a while.

I too will continue to try to prevent people from doing what i don't want them to do unscrupulously.

My nefarious mind doesn't stop there, sometimes i even encourage people to do what i want!

A more fitting analogy would be you sitting in the back seat of your car asleep while your driver goes 85 on a 65 road. Then the officer fines you for speeding, not the driver.

_________________
FusekiLibrary, an opening library.
SGF converter tools: Wbaduk NGF to SGF | 440 go problems | Fuseki made easy | Tesuji made easy | Elementary training & Dan level testing | Dan Tutor Shortcut To Dan

The FSF has a history of attacking companies, whether it be blatant stupid attacks (their Vista sucks campaign, or whatever it's called), or this type of passive-agressive attack. The words they used were not of the type, "Oh, would you please change your conditions." They said, instead, "continuing their longstanding habit of preventing users from doing anything that Apple doesn't want them to do." No one is surprised at the FSF's attitude, and the FSF is far from having total approval in the world of free software because of their actions and the rigid GPL.

And, pray tell, what is Apple's long history of legal threats?

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Come on, Kirk. It is hardly surprising that an advocacy organization criticizes companies that act in ways counter to the philosophy it advocates. Sometimes I raise my eyebrows at the FSF too, as they can be a bit heavy-handed for my tastes. But this isn't one of those times. Neither was the "BadVista" campaign or the campaign against DRM generally. Ask yourself why you are being so defensive here, and why everything Apple does has to be right.

Kirk, you realise that at least 40% of these posts are simply Kirk-bait - you don't have to keep rising to them

I know, but it gives me practice.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville