[PD] expr alternative

[Mathieu Bouchard]

Le 2011-11-04 à 16:28:00, i go bananas a écrit :

> "7.1    Delivery of Freely Available Licensed Applications via the App 
> Store; Certificates If Your Application qualifies as a Licensed 
> Application, it is eligible for delivery to end-users via the App Store 
> by Apple and/or an Apple Subsidiary. If You would like Apple and/or an 
> Apple Subsidiary to deliver Your Licensed Application or authorize 
> additional content, functionality or services You make available in Your 
> Licensed Application through the use of the In App Purchase API to 
> end-users for free (no charge) via the App Store, then You appoint Apple 
> and Apple Subsidiaries as Your legal agent pursuant to the terms of 
> Schedule 1, for Licensed Applications designated by You as free of 
> charge applications.

Wow, does this means I can't sue Apple if they ever do anything 
reprehensible with my free-of-charge app ? I have to trust that they will 
agree to sue themselves... :}

Well, the trick is easy. You charge a nominal 0,01 $. Anyway, for Free 
Software (GPL/LGPL), any amount whatsoever may be charged for the final 
packages. The only money restriction is that you can't charge much extra 
for the source code, although no actual limit is stated in the license 
texts. For the executables, you could charge 666666,66 $ for GPL/LGPL 
software in the App Store and the FSF wouldn't give a damn (legally... 
though they might think your business model is dumb).

The only problem with 0,01 $ would then be that one has to pay the cent, 
and possibly extra transaction fees, rather than just click OK. Well, I 
never have used App Store, so I don't really know how much hassle and how 
much more fees it means, but as a substitute, I'm thinking of the 
difference between an unrestricted website vs one that wants to sell me a 
lot of content for a single payment of 0,01 $ via PayPal.

> If Your Application qualifies as a Licensed Application and You intend 
> to charge end-users a fee of any kind for Your Licensed Application or 
> within Your Licensed Application through the use of the In App Purchase 
> API, You must enter into a separate agreement (Schedule 2)

What's the « Schedule 2 » that they are talking about ?

> with Apple and/or an Apple Subsidiary before any such commercial 
> distribution of Your Licensed Application may take place via the App 
> Store or before any such commercial delivery of additional content, 
> functionality or services for which you charge end-users a fee may be 
> authorized through the use of the In App Purchase API in Your Licensed 
> Application."

Although the App Store is a big thing, this does not limit your ability to 
charge money in general (outside of App Store). It only applies when 
distributing in the App Store.

But is it ok to have to get additional permission from Apple for being 
allowed to charge something ? This sounds like it could conflict.

> It appears to me that if Mr Yadegari and IRCAM are willing to license 
> expr under the LGPL, then there's a good chance that the 'full' vanilla 
> distribution would be allowed in iOS applications. 

Have you read this ?

http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/why-free-software-and-apples-iphone-dont-mix

(says last modified oct 2011, but is listed somewhere else as first 
released july 2008)

  ______________________________________________________________________
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC