So 5 or 6 years ago, this guy named Bogdan Popescu starts a company called Kapeli and writes a bunch of Shovelware. "Gather round, folks, let me tell you a story. Why would Popescu need to escape his dark and terrible past of writing mildly useful programs? It also doesn’t seem fair to label these programs “shovelware”, which is apparently a term that describes “large amounts of public domain, open source and shareware demos and programs … copied onto CD-ROMs and advertised in magazines or sold at computer flea markets”. While these may not be the most useful programs in the world, there doesn’t seem to be anything illegitimate about them in particular, they are neither adware nor malware. Even though Mac OS X is already protected from most threats, iGuard adds an extra layer of security and will protect you from hackers that could gain remote access to your Mac.” “iGuard … protects your Mac by keeping an eye on the currently logged in users. It helps you visualize the windows you currently have open and easily find the window you are looking for.” “DockView … extends Apple’s Dock and shows window previews whenever you hover your mouse over an application or while using CMD+Tab. It helps you easily find the window or application you are looking for.” Switché uses CoverFlow to display previews in a visually appealing way. “Switché … can be used to switch between applications or individual windows, ordered by last use. It’s meant to replace dragging and dropping for anyone that would rather use the keyboard instead of the mouse.” “moveAddict … provides a functionality the Finder was missing, the ability to move files using the keyboard. I would say you can satisfy both at the same time by giving the customer an additional copy at the same instant, say on a USB drive. "G" supplies the software to me, and says I can give it to other people, as long as I allow them to have the source and pass it on under the same terms. "A" enforces the security of the room and while you can download stuff to the computer, you can't copy stuff from it. It's like you have a locked-down computer in a high security room, and I want to send you a program. You are not distributing it separately under two licenses, but at the same time over two channels. The GPL is satisfied, since the user gets to distribute the binary, and gets the source. Then, outside of the App store, you give everybody an additional copy. You fulfill your obligations, granting these rights, in the next step. Users do not yet have the rights you need to grant them according to the GPL. The uploaded version is restricted, as per Apples terms. You are not the copyright owner, you take it (under GPL terms) and upload it to the App store. That doesn't mean you can't distribute the app under GPL. This is also the case if you have a GPL application that needs features from Windows Professional, but you only have a Home license. If this other devices allows it technically and legally - this restriction always applies. GPL is satisfied because the person who recieved the first binary gets a binary they can run, and redistribute (although it is cumbersome and they have to sign it etc. You are free to install it on other devices. Then you get another copy from the developer. You cannot install it on other devices, it doesn't give you the right to the source code, etc. Specifically, you get one copy from the app store that is restricted by Apple's license. This I never understood, GPL doesn't allow you to impose the restrictions the app store requires, right?Ĭan't you just supply every user with a second copy of the software, which they are allowed to use under the GPL freedoms?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |