undefined | Better HN

0 pointssimondotau2y ago0 comments

It has everything to do with it. We don't necessarily disagree about what we think Apple should do. My argument here is that I care about the GPL being respected, which forces me to respect the fundamental principle of distributing code with coercive license terms, whether or not the coercion involves money. If Apple doesn't want to give their intellectual property away for free, they shouldn't be required to, even if it doing so is often the norm. Even if Apple had followed that norm in some other contexts in the past.

If we were discussing desktop operating systems, this is the moment where I would advocate switching to a properly Free Software (or near-Free) software ecosystem. Unfortunately there's nothing for me to advocate when it comes to smartphones; there aren't any serious recommendations to make which aren't catastrophically impractical for all but the most obsessive Richard Stallman acolyte.

0 comments

wasmitnetzen2y ago

There is a fundamental difference you're ignoring: the GPL is not a monopoly of any sort, Apple is part of a duopoly.

simondotauOP2y ago

I’m not ignoring it. I’m saying one is great and one sucks, but they both scaffold upon the same legal principle so decry the latter at your peril.

dns_snek2y ago

Apple is not giving away intellectual property for free.

1. They're already charging for access to SDKs and services via their $100 annual developer fee. Quote from Apple:

> Membership includes all the tools, resources, and support you need to develop and distribute apps, including access to beta software, app services, testing tools, app analytics, and more.

2. In any case, reverse engineering, modifications, and distribution of IP for the purposes of interoperability is protected under the Computer Programs Directive in the EU

simondotauOP2y ago

1. Irrelevant. You’re not receiving unlimited distribution rights with that particular purchase.

2. The directive gives end users the right to reverse engineer, modify, and make PRIVATE copies of intellectual property for the purposes of interoperability. It doesn’t create a new avenue for the redistribution of intellectual property.

dns_snek2y ago

I get it, so they get to make up new fees that previously didn't exist and claim they're a reasonable way to comply. If they get accused of not having enough toilets at the office, they can simply build one and charge $10000 per use to "cover operating expenses", brilliant! That's what this is.

Can you imagine if AMD or Intel tried to charge a fee to every program written using their instruction set? How about your web browser or keyboard manufacturer wanting a cut of your revenue? Is that ridiculous enough yet? Apple derives almost the entirety of their value from their app ecosystem, so don't act like giving developers access to development tools used to be charity before this new fee came along. Conveniently it only affects one side of this monopolistic fence, too.

Above all, there's nothing being distributed, the tools and SDKs certainly aren't, and APIs aren't protected IP, courts have already settled that.

1 more reply

waffleiron2y ago

When you put a sticker on your car, it interfaces with intellectual property of the car manufacturer. It would be absurd if you had to pay BMW each time you modify your car, or say play a song over the integrated radio because that’s only possible due to their IP.

simondotauOP2y ago

Yes, that would be absurd. It’s also not even remotely analogous to redistributing intellectual property.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointssimondotau2y ago0 comments

0 comments

wasmitnetzen2y ago

There is a fundamental difference you're ignoring: the GPL is not a monopoly of any sort, Apple is part of a duopoly.

simondotauOP2y ago

I’m not ignoring it. I’m saying one is great and one sucks, but they both scaffold upon the same legal principle so decry the latter at your peril.

dns_snek2y ago

Apple is not giving away intellectual property for free.

1. They're already charging for access to SDKs and services via their $100 annual developer fee. Quote from Apple:

> Membership includes all the tools, resources, and support you need to develop and distribute apps, including access to beta software, app services, testing tools, app analytics, and more.

2. In any case, reverse engineering, modifications, and distribution of IP for the purposes of interoperability is protected under the Computer Programs Directive in the EU

simondotauOP2y ago

1. Irrelevant. You’re not receiving unlimited distribution rights with that particular purchase.

dns_snek2y ago

Above all, there's nothing being distributed, the tools and SDKs certainly aren't, and APIs aren't protected IP, courts have already settled that.

1 more reply

waffleiron2y ago

simondotauOP2y ago

Yes, that would be absurd. It’s also not even remotely analogous to redistributing intellectual property.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse