[halostatue]

There is a trivial way to get the application onto the device: pay the $99/year fee to be a developer and re-sign a 'beta' version.

http://www.hogbaysoftware.com/wiki/iOSDeveloperSelfSign

The problem here is that someone has made the assumption that the GNU GPL is permitted to impose restrictions on third parties or platform vendors. It isn't.

What happened here is that someone didn't understand what the GNU GPL does and does not do (and that includes the FSF, IMO) with respect to third-parties and platform vendors.

[mtvartia]

With all respect, IMO paying 99 dollars a year, getting a developer license and re-signing the application yourself is far from 'trivial'.

That aside, for me it is hard to see how Apple would not be the first-hand distributor for apps in its app store, as it clearly wants to control all distribution from the beginning to the end.

By loosening their stance on this (allowing easy installation of applications by other means) they would position themselves quite differently.

[halostatue]

It's trivial. One used to have to pay thousands of dollars for a compiler. On some platforms, you still do, because gcc is substandard on the platform.

The GPL can't impose on third parties.

[mtvartia]

Is applying for a developer license from Apple really trivial? Is it not possible for Apple to simply not grant the license if they, for example, wish to deprecate a platform?

Do you have, or know a text that provides a proper explanation of 'GPL cannot impose restrictions on third parties', as the license (v2 as in the subject) clearly says:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

What counters the statement "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein"?

Edit: formatting of the cited paragraph.

[halostatue]

Apple is acting, more or less, as an FTP site plus an OS vendor in this case. In theory, the GPL can put obligations on the FTP site as a distributor, but it cannot out obligations on the OS vendor.

If this were the case, it would not be possible to ship ANY non-GPL-compatible software on Debian, for example, even in a non-free environment.

The question comes down to what the distribution site does, and they have two clauses: one for commercial and ne for non-commercial interests. They do not seem to be in conflict to me.

[mtvartia]

(I can only wonder what in my comments has been inappropriate enough to justify the downvotes. Simply disagreeing on a civilized opinion shouldn't prompt censors to act.)

If a distribution site requires to accept a contract between the distributor and the downloader regarding the usage of the downloaded programs, it is not equal to an FTP site which merely puts programs available.

I don't understand how Apple's position as an OS vendor affects the situation, if the question is about distribution. I would really enjoy a thorough explanation about it, if there is one, since to me it does not make any sense.

If there is no conflict (any more) between Apple's terms of usage for downloaded apps and GPL, then it all boils down to Apple's decision to remove the application without reason (other than an invalidated claim of copyright infringement). In that case, all the other GPL'ed software could be returned to distribution.

I can imagine that even Apple's own personnel has hard time following all the changes in their own terms and their implications of cases like this, and that's why it would be the best if Apple simply lifted the restrictions of their platform.