this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
241 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
59534 readers
3195 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The terms would make something like F-Droid impossible. The fundamental problem is that Apple believes it is owed a fee when people distribute apps for the iPhone, but no legal mechanism entitles them to such a fee; I'm fairly sure it's possible to make an iPhone app without copying any of Apple's copyrighted code or using any of their patents.
The only mechanism that allows them to collect one is their technical control over the platform, and that's what the DMA was intended to remove.
This sounds wrong, but I was never particularly interested in iOS app development, so take that with a grain of salt.
The GNU GPL prohibits non-GPL software from even dynamically linking to GPL libraries. Assuming that enforcing such a condition is acceptable under relevant copyright law, and that you can’t make an iOS app without linking to any Apple libraries, Apple does have a legal mechanism to enforce this.
French developers may get a pass, with VLC and all.
The GPL has an exception for "system libraries" on this regard, but it's as handwavy as the rest of the license.
The GPL isn't meant to be a real license, it's supposed to be a toxic waste bucket that companies don't want to interact with. This it succeeds at.