• @[email protected]M
      link
      fedilink
      English
      110 months ago

      It’s AGPL. Fine with me but: Since when is AGPL code allowed on the Apple app store?

        • @[email protected]M
          link
          fedilink
          English
          310 months ago

          I’ve read CONTRIBUTING.md and unless I’ve missed a line by accident, there is no CLA for contributions, so with the first non-trivial 3rs party contribution the entire code base is AGPL with no way to relicense unless it’s negotiated with said contributor.

            • @[email protected]M
              link
              fedilink
              English
              110 months ago

              The (A)GPL has no problems with the app store. It merely requires that users must be able to install altered versions and that’s certainly possible. It’s the app store policies by Apple that forbid GPL apps.

              Missing a CLA seems like an oversight, releasing the public code under a license forbidden by Apple’s terms is most likely a deliberate choice to block competing app store submissions. They’d just use LGPLv2.1, Apache License 2, or so.

              • @dukk
                link
                English
                110 months ago

                From the README:

                Feel free to take a look around. We are not yet taking patches as we still have a little bit of tidying up to do. When we do, there will be a contributor license agreement.

                So yeah, looks like there will be a CLA.

                • @[email protected]M
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  110 months ago

                  I don’t think Apple’s terms are problematic.

                  The VLC people had to contact many authors to relicense libVLC to LGPLv2.1 because it would otherwise not be compliant to Apple’s terms. Surely the details are documented somewhere.