• woelkchen@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year 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.

        • woelkchen@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.

            • woelkchen@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

      • dukk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year 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.