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.
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.
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.
That’s because VLC took external contributions, and therefore couldn’t relicence the software by themselves.
“As I understand Apple’s terms, GPL code isn’t actually prohibited”
No relicensing would have been required if your understanding was correct. That said, I have a slight headache and that’s why I’m not looking it up myself.
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.
It’s AGPL. Fine with me but: Since when is AGPL code allowed on the Apple app store?
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
“As I understand Apple’s terms, GPL code isn’t actually prohibited”
No relicensing would have been required if your understanding was correct. That said, I have a slight headache and that’s why I’m not looking it up myself.
From the README:
So yeah, looks like there will be a CLA.
So hostile, asymmetric licensing…