[MrMC]

Rather than argue in uncertainties, here is the actual legal argument why the gpl2 and appstore policies don't mix. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/no...store/8046

I don't see any real legal argument here, VLC got pulled because a VLC dev pitched a fit and they decided rather than face an internal developer war, they would make the license explicit and avoid the gray implied arguments under GPLv2. VLC lives now on the iOS App store under an explicit license. FSF likes to make arguments in favor of their agenda. However, given push to shove, they still caved under a real legal setting as with TiVo.

There are tons of apps in the Apple OSX/iOS App store that are based on GPLv2, one got pulled. The others remain, and I don't see Apple rejecting Apps because they are GPLv2 based.

[natethomas]

There are tons of apps in the Apple OSX/iOS App store that are based on GPLv2, one got pulled. The others remain, and I don't see Apple rejecting Apps because they are GPLv2 based.

Just because Apple isn't rejecting GPL2 apps doesn't mean the terms of the license aren't being violated. This is a moot point anyway, as there's simply no way XBMC/Kodi is ever going into the appstore. I just wanted to show the legal reasoning behind the incompatibility argument. Whether you do or don't agree with that reasoning is frankly unimportant, as enough of our devs do agree with that reasoning that a major shitstorm would occur if submission were ever attempted on our part.

[MrMC]

XBMC/Kodi might never make it into the Apple App store, I agree with that. That's a developer/foundation decision, nothing more.

A full blown fork by someone that knows what they are doing might and there is nothing in the GPLv2 license to prevent it. Provided that that person makes public the entire source code and how to build it, the explicit terms of the GPLv2 license remain intact.

There are prior court rulings to support this and because FSF created GPLv3 specifically to counter such holes in GPLv2 demonstrates that FSF themselves admit that there is nothing in GPLv2 license to prevent such usage. Implied vs Explicit, the implied concept cuts both ways.

Last thing to think about, the entire Android ecosystem depends on the modified Linux kernel and most all Android phone manufacturers lock down their phones such that their kernel cannot be replaced as it is signed. Most, if not all, do release their modified kernel source code. Not a squawk, from FSF about this besides spewing words like 'tyrant' and 'ethical'. The Linux based Android kernel is GPLv2 licensed. If there was ever a court ruling that supported such an incompatibility argument, the entire Android ecosystem model of security would be placed in jeopardy. As there are many, very major players there and billions and billion of dollars at stake, I highly doubt that such a ruling would ever happen.

[takoi]

I don't see any real legal argument here

Seem pretty clear to me: GPL: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.", "App Store terms prohibit commercial use, general distribution, and modification".

[MrMC]

Ok, I'll bite, then say goodbye to every having Kodi/XBMC officially in the Google App Store.

https://play.google.com/about/developer-...ement.html

2. Accepting this Agreement
2.1 This agreement ("Agreement") forms a legally binding contract between you and Google in relation to your use of the Market to distribute Products. In order to use the Market to distribute Products, you must first agree to this Agreement by clicking to accept where this option is made available to you. You may not distribute Products on the Market if you do not accept this Agreement.

2.2 You may not use the Market to distribute Products and may not accept the Agreement unless you are verified as a Developer in good standing. This Agreement will automatically terminate if you are (a) not a Developer in good standing, or (b) a person or entity barred from using Android software under the laws of the United States or other countries including the country in which you are resident or from which you use the Android software.

https://play.google.com/intl/en_us/about...terms.html

1. Introduction

Applicable Terms. By using digital content on Google Play, you agree to the following terms


Opps, sure looks like more restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein... Seems like Android is not so free after all.

These straw arguments cut both ways.

Seriously, there is a boat load of GPLv2 binaries in Android OS. On the standard Android phone, you are not free to modify and replace them. FSF refuses to touch this under GPLv2 terms. And they come up with an augment that obviously applies to both Apple and Android. They seem to think Android is more free than Apple but you can't have it both ways. Smells more like a political/philosophical argument than legal.

[MrMC]

HAHAHA, had a funny thought on the drive to work.

This could escalate into a great landmark legal case with two huge corporations joining the legal battle. You would have Apple on the side of excluding it from the Apple App Store because such a legal ruling would seriously hurt Google regarding the Android OS and Google on the side of including it to prevent such a ruling.

[Martijn]

HAHAHA, had a funny thought on the drive to work.

This could escalate into a great landmark legal case with two huge corporations joining the legal battle. You would have Apple on the side of excluding it from the Apple App Store because such a legal ruling would seriously hurt Google regarding the Android OS and Google on the side of including it to prevent such a ruling.

where's the popcorn?