[paxys]

You can't add a GPL-3 license in your repo (which explicitly allows modification, distribution, commercial use) and then also write "not for commercial distribution" in the README. Pick one.

Even then, it can be argued that a national government publishing an app for free is not commercial use.

[bjelkeman-again]

The GPL 3.0 license afaik does not allow further restriction, like an AppStore imposes.

Details about how the GPL license prevents distribution, for example via the Apple App Store, without a further licensing agreement beyond the GPL license, can be seen here at the Free Software Foundation’s website (FSF wrote the GPL license).

The origin of the notes https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance

More useful detail https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store...

Excerpt from the last document:

———+

Along the same lines, we'll be talking about GPLv2 specifically in this blog post, since that's the license at issue, but this analysis would apply to all versions of the GNU GPL and AGPL. Section 6 of GPLv2 says:

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.

This last sentence is a crucial part of the strong copyleft in the GPL and AGPL: it prevents distributors from using separate legal agreements, like Terms of Service or NDAs, to take away the freedoms that the license is supposed to grant. This is the license condition that Apple is violating when it distributes GPL-covered software through the App Store.

[kube-system]

More than that, I's say it's a pretty big stretch to say that a government giving something away is in any way 'commercial use'.

[mhdhejazi]

I'm not concerned about commercial use here. It's about publishing the app without complying with the GPL-3 conditions. It'd be fine had they respected the license and attributed the project.

[kube-system]

https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/appstor...

[diebeforei485]

Contact Apple about this.

https://developer.apple.com/contact/#!/topic/select

[mhdhejazi]

I did. Let's see what they do.

[dependenttypes]

> which explicitly allows modification, distribution, commercial use

But does not allow Tivoization, something that the App store does. This is clearly a violation of the license.

[rvz]

Correct. Next time, the author should just use a strict non-commercial creative commons license with attribution like: CC-NC-A where commercial use is forbidden and the author must be attributed but can also allow remixes or changes.

[wmeredith]

And then what? All this back and forth about license types is farcical. Is he going to sue Saudi Arabia? In what court? It’s a monarchy that tortured and executes people with impunity for personal and political reasons with the support at the highest levels of our government. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khash...

[heldrida]

You're absolutely right!

[sandov]

Maybe it would count as dual-licensing it: GPL and an ad-hoc non-commercial license.