iPhone SDK agreement is a 'giant joke'...on several levels
Zac Bowling (of Mono fame) is not a huge fan of Apple's new software development kit for the iPhone.
Indeed, he's no fan at all.
Reading through his late Friday post, in which he calls Apple's program a "giant joke," it's fairly clear as to why: even in Apple's attempt to open up the iPhone, the company keeps it rigidly closed.
The thing that I found most interesting in Zac's post is the mention of Section 3.3.14 in Apple's SDK license agreement. It betrays an odd (and wrong) understanding of open source from Apple:
If Your Application includes any FOSS [free and open-source software], You agree to comply with all applicable FOSS licensing terms. You also agree not to use any FOSS in the development of Your Application in such a way that would cause the non-FOSS portions of the SDK to be subject to any FOSS licensing terms or obligations.
Perhaps this is just a matter of Apple playing it safe, but that second sentence is garbage. A downstream user of Apple's SDK cannot force open-source licensing onto the SDK. One cannot "reverse engineer" open source into the SDK. Open-source licensing simply doesn't work that way.
It is likely that I would not be able to use some open-source software with the SDK due to its licensing restrictions. It is impossible that I would be able to force-feed Apple's SDK with conflicting open-source licensing terms and thereby "infect" Apple's code. If this were possible, don't you think someone would have done so with Microsoft's portfolio of software?
This is just overly cautious legal engineering on Apple's part, and it's not welcome. It perpetuates myths about open source. Bowling writes, "The restrictions on what your application is allowed to do is total, laugh-out-loud, crap." I concur. This license restriction alone fits that description.
Utterly.
Matt Asay is general manager of the Americas and vice president of business development at Alfresco, and has nearly a decade of operational experience with commercial open source and regularly speaks and publishes on open-source business strategy. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
- Topics:
-
Apple,
-
Industry news,
-
Development,
-
Licensing
- Tags:
-
iPhone,
-
open source
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
Presumably GPS will be soon, as it will soon be mandatory that cell-phone users be as trackable as their phones are tappable and e-mail readable.
The battery can be replaced by the user as easily as it can for the iPods, but I wouldn't bother until it's out of warranty.
Flash is not at all common for mobile content. Strictly speaking, Windows Mobile doesn't officially support it either (yet, and then they are going to officially support "Flash Lite"). I would like to see some sort of flash support though.
As far as SlingBox goes... Sling has indicated that they are developing SlingPlayer for iPhone. I can't imagine it'd work well over EDGE. I suppose they could release a Wi-Fi only version, or they could wait for the 3G iPhone (June). I would think that they'd opt for the latter. Windows Mobile already has it because: the SDK has been around longer, and the user-base of Sling-on-Windows Mobile is significantly smaller than what's projected for iPhone (so the impact on the network is far less of a concern).
For me, the iPhone's largest shortcoming is the lack of voice-dialing. Than hamstrings the utility of your bluetooth headset. The OS has wonderful speech recognition capabilities built-in, why not use it?
There's an irony here that no one caught the Instant Message sent out by the hoards of buyers, that Instant Messaging wasn't all that big of a deal to those buyers, or that the lack of a GPS hasn't steered many towards iPhone's competition. This is the market calling. Pick up. We have money if you'd like some. All you need to do is listen, and not assume. To twist Ford, we've been begging for a phone and you've been offering faster horses.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/03/13/iphone-20-sdk-the-no-multitasking-myth/
And a month before the iPhone shipped, as it was becoming clear this was going to be a much bigger seller than even AT&T had anticipated, Verizon ran to USA TOday with an interview stating, "We do have a very good response in the mill. You'll see that from us in the late summer."
Looking back over the summer of 2007, I can't even guess what that product was supposed to have been.
Verizon passed up on an unknown amount of net-new business from a 'non-useful device' that captured 27% of the US smart phone market after Steve Ballmer said, "There?s no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." Perhaps the spin ought to come from Verizon and Microsoft? There really isn't much in need of spin on Apple's part.
The "if it hasn't been done to Microsoft" strawman is hardly a proof that refutes what ways that people might try to creatively use the legal system in the future.
The myth is that licenses such as the GPL can somehow force you to reveal source code and lose your rights to keeping the code restricted. This is nonsense, no license can force you to do this.
Suppose you incorporate some copyrighted code in your application and distribute the application without permission. This is a copyright violation. The copyright holder can sue you. This is true whether or not the copyright holder is Microsoft (and the code is covered by the Microsoft EULA), or the FSF (and the code is covered by the GPL).
Now what happens if you are sued. Two things:
1. You owe damages for the copyright violation.
2. You have to mend things so that the copyright violation is cured in the future.
To do 2, you can license the offending software, or remove it from your application.
in the case of the GPL, you have a third option, AT YOUR OPTION AND ONLY AT YOUR OPTION, you can distribute the sources of your application in conformance with the GPL. You don't have to do that, it's just an extra option. If you decline, then you are no worse off than if this provision did not exist (i.e. you will have to seek an appropriate license, or remove the code). The
redistribution freedom in the GPL just increases your options, but you don't have to take advantage of them.
So there is never a case of your code automatically being "subject to the GPL" or any other such nonsense. It's just that you have the option in the FSF/GPL case of continuing to distribute the software IF YOU CHOOSE. This option does not exist with Microsoft.
Note that agreeing to distribute sources in the future is all about step 2, curing the violation, it is not about step 1. If you distributed the GPL'ed software without the sources, you have committed a copyright violation and owe damages, just as you would with microsoft. Agreeing to cure this in future does not mean you can escape the consequences of this violation, though in practice many GPL'ed license holders would be satisified with a proposal to cure the violation by releasing sources, and would drop the claim for damages.
So the bottom line, is you are never worse off with the GPL in this respect. You may be better off, though in practice, for the case of proprietary software developers including third party code, the freedom to distribute sources is not typically useful, since this method of curing the copyright violation is not practical.
The interesting thing here is that any competent lawyer would know that the provision in the Apple license is complete nonsense. So my best guess is that this is deliberate obfuscation. Companies in the proprietary closed source business have a real interest in spreading confusion and misinformation.
I heard Bill Gates once at NYU, asked about open sourcing Office, say something like "Well the advantage of the commercial approach to software is that by making a small (!) charge for the software, we have the resources to support future development." Now of course Bill Gates knows perfectly well that the opposition of FLOSS vs commercial software is bogus, but he chose on this occasion to obfuscate.
Robert Dewar
President/CEO AdaCore
(in the interest of full disclosure, AdaCore is in the business of selling commercial FLOSS products, and has a distinct interest in trying to avoid the spreading of bogus myths about open and free software :-)).
I don't think that ever commented on that section in my blog. I came to the same conclusion here, that it was dumb for including such a useless statement but never came to any judgment in the blog about it. The only reason I even copied it the text and put it in my blog, as it was interesting and added to my case for the absurdity of the license as a whole.
3G is a battery issue, GPS is a battery and space issue, TV - wth are you talking about?, non-user replaceable battery? Umm, honestly, almost EVERYONE gets a new phone before their battery is dead so it really is a non-issue for basically everyone. Typical anti-Apple idiotic crap. What about the fact that the SDK opens up VOIP over WiFi? It's like TMobile's hot spot at home but you won't have to pay a monthly fee for it. Naturally you skipped all of that since your goal is to whine but still.
If FOSS doesn't work that way, as you say, there is no way you can do the above, right? So effectively that sentence is saying "You agree not to do (what at least 2 people familiar with FOSS agree is) anything you can't do to begin with".
And *** is wrong with that, exactly?
A replaceable battery may not be useful to everybody but since almost every other phone (and laptop) has them you shouldn't take someone to task for pointing out the lack of the feature.
"Who's there?"
"Bunch of guys complaining that a red hot platform adopted by the masses at unprecedented rates doesn't want to play by the rules of a small clique and will thus be rejected by the broader industry, on the principle that ...."
"Sorry, say that again, I can't hear you, there's like 100,000 people in here."
"Bunch of guys complaining that... aw forget it."
5 minutes later.
"Knock knock."
"Who's there."
"Mono?."
"Bono? Ooooh, (RED) iPhone?"
"No, Mono?, you're supposed to say Mono? Who?"
"So, no (RED) iPhone?"
"Come on, I'm trying to make a point about a platform for rapidly deploying existing apps to the iPhone."
"Oh, like Java?? He's here already. One sec. Hey Java?, I think Bono's here to see you. Uh huh. Yeah. Sorry, he say's he already gave, but he wants to know when you're next studio album's due."
The SDK will be no different. While you guys are whining about licensing terms, there's going to be tons of developers delivering great apps and making good money.
Zac... the only crap here is your understanding of licensing and legal agreements. All the above is saying is Apple is held harmless if a developer creates something that violates some Open Source licensing. That is all. It is not saying Apple will not sell or distribute the software, but if the developer gets sued, Apple can not.
Dear CNet Editor... PLEASE stop publishing junk articles like this? Does anyone at CNet research anything anymore or read what is published? This is not the first overly slanted, worthless bunch of non-hype junk your organization has allowed to be posted. UGH!
Greg
I don't think that ever commented on that section in my blog. I came to the same conclusion here, that it was dumb for including such a useless statement but never came to any judgment in the blog about it. The only reason I even copied it the text and put it in my blog, as it was interesting and added to my case for the absurdity of the license as a whole.
A 30% cut isn't so bad -- that's a little less than what they see when they retail a product (there you get the distributor overhead + the retail overhead), and there's no overhead for packaging and delivery.
You could also get you software onto the phone without the Apple store, but it requires downloading, to computer, connecting phone by wire, using tool to push to phone, etc. Not as slick, requires more work, but the option is there.
What percentage do you think EA gets? Or how about the Palm developers on PalmSource or whatever that store is?
After hosting, licensing, middle man, credit card, distribution, etc fees, I surmise most get far less than 70%.
Sure they are following "the rules" and they are adding in even more! First of all, most developer program cost money. Try to join Adobe's for free? NOT! $99 is a very fair and reasonable price. Most are much more than that. As for the 30% and distributing through iTunes.... THAT IS AN ADVANTAGE! Oh my goodness... if approved by Apple you get access to all iPhone customers instantly through iTunes. And I only have to pay 30%... that is standard for a reseller agreement, Oh.. and the approval thing... all major distributors and resellers "approve" what the resell or distribute. Just try to place software in Best Buy and see what hoops you have to jump through. This is such a huge advantage!!!
I really wish people would try to understand how the industry works before spouting off about things they don't have a clue about. Sorry to be rude!
Sure they are following "the rules" and they are adding in even more! First of all, most developer program cost money. Try to join Adobe's for free? NOT! $99 is a very fair and reasonable price. Most are much more than that. As for the 30% and distributing through iTunes.... THAT IS AN ADVANTAGE! Oh my goodness... if approved by Apple you get access to all iPhone customers instantly through iTunes. And I only have to pay 30%... that is standard for a reseller agreement, Oh.. and the approval thing... all major distributors and resellers "approve" what the resell or distribute. Just try to place software in Best Buy and see what hoops you have to jump through. This is such a huge advantage!!!
I really wish people would try to understand how the industry works before spouting off about things they don't have a clue about. Sorry to be rude!
>>that would cause the non-FOSS portions of the SDK to be subject to any FOSS licensing
>>terms or obligations.
Yes, Apple DOES need to be both aware of and wary of FOSS. It this were not true, Microsoft could buy/include/use FOSS at will. Right now, there are legions of lawyers just waiting for MS to make a single misstep so they can use the FOSS licensing to force open the rest of MS's intellectual property. For Apple to ignore this issue would be short-sighted at best.
If it's not possible, why complain about it?
It seems clear to me that the only people out there complaining are not developers worth **** anyway.
Frankly, I'm hard pressed to CARE much about it being absent on a device as small as my cellphone. Sure, some web sites want to serve me video clips that won't work ... but that's not the end of the world. Web surfing done on my PHONE is typically just to grab some important info I need to access, on the spot. I don't ever have a sudden, pressing need to watch someone's humorous video or play some online Flash-based game.
The SDK is still in BETA and the majority of people applying to pay their $99 and become an official developer who can post their work to Apple's store are being REJECTED right now. Nit-picking over details of the SDK's agreement seem rather premature at this point in time. Most likely, Apple just asked the legal team to cobble something together so they could roll this beta out the door in time for their presentation. As usual, lawyers aren't the wisest ones about fully comprehending the issues and needs of software developers - so they have a few "screwed up" restrictions and nonsense clauses in there right now.
In the end, this won't matter. People will continue to jailbreak the phone and run "unauthorized" apps on iPhones. Others will prefer to only use the Apple sanctioned stuff. You can pick and choose your method of operation, or most likely, use both simultaneously, if you're so inclined. A few people will whine and ***** about Apple not being as officially "open" as "Brand Y" of device - but the rest of us will get on with buying and using the product we like using the most. If that's an iPhone, so be it.
For example, do you know how much it costs to get a certificate for your Windows Mobile software? $300 for 10 signings ($30/each signing) or $500 for 100 signings, can you have to sign every dll, exe, and cab (that's the installer), for every bug fix release. Obviously, 10 signings are not enough, so you can look at $500 out of pocket to start.
The $99 Apple charges is absolutely the best deal you can get.
The 30% cut Apple gets is a great deal for small developers, shareware authors (that applies to 99 percent of those 10,000 SDK downloads). You don't need to get a domain name. You don't need to develop and host a website. You don't need to get a credit card processing. The fact is, if you use Handango to distribute your mobile software for other platforms, they keep 40%.
Having all apps in the same Apple App Store essentially help the small guys, who does not have the money and expertise in web marketing.
That's why I say all the whiners aren't serious developers. The people who are already developing and marketing apps for other mobile platforms know this is a good deal, and they are the people Apple want to attract.
I hope that at least some of them are, and that Apple continues to iterate their SDK strategy
until they hit the sweet spot required to decisively win the hearts and minds of the developer community.
Apple?s history with developers gives some reason for skepticism, something that I recently blogged about in, ?The Scorpion, the Frog and the iPhone SDK.?
Check it out if interested:
http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2008/03/the-scorpion-th.html
All of that said, give them props for trying to reconcile a lot of moving parts: integration with iTunes ecosystem, the marketplace/AppStore piece, enterprise objectives, carrier objectives, developer objectives, all needing to co-exist with a highly performance optimized device.
The grass is always greener...
Cheers,
Mark
-
by R. U. Sirius
March 17, 2008 2:38 PM PDT
- The open sourcers are a funny lot. The way I read it, Apple is trying to protect your turf, so why are you getting so bent out of shape? Is it because, gasp!, someone is trying to make a profit on software? Perhish the thought.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 38 Comments >>