Oracle Licence and Apple AppStore violation

[Jeff Palmer]

On 3/30/12 4:15 PM, "Scott Palmer" <swpalmer at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> On 2012-03-30, at 3:58 PM, Jeff Palmer wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for replying.  I actually thought I was closer giving a legal "heads
>> up" (advice seem too strong), not asking for it.  This was directed to those
>> thinking about using the bundling process under development here.
>> 
>> This is an actual quote from the preamble of GNU Lesser General Public
>> License, version 2.1, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html
>> 
>> "Although the Lesser General Public License is Less protective of the users'
>> freedom, it does ensure that the user of a program that is linked with the
>> Library has the freedom and the wherewithal to run that program using a
>> modified version of the Library."
>> 
>> People who would run one of these bundled programs would seem to have the
>> the right to switch out the JRE, but how can they?  If you have customers
>> that want to cause a developer problems, this is a wide open way for them to
>> do it.
> 
> 
> It says they have the right to switch it out.. But does it say you have to
> tell them how to do that or help them in any way?
> 
> Has LGPL ever been successfully defended anyway? Even the Linux kernel folks
> happily let nVidia ignore itŠ nobody but Richard Stallman actually cares.
> 
> Scott

Good point on the it doesn't have to be pretty front.  It just has to be
possible.  If the OS files that constitute a JRE from bundling, can be cp'ed
over by ones the user got from somewhere else, then they are replaceable.

As far as LPGL defense success:

-First, I do not know what GPL libraries nVidia is using as building blocks
of their video drivers, but presumably they could also be cp'ed with
replacements per above.

- There has been one success I know of:
http://www.macnn.com/articles/11/01/07/move.said.to.be.related.to.licensing.
dispute .  It is really the addition of some physical barrier, usually
created by some other party that causes the potential problem.  Being
required to jail break your phone to change out the library seems a bit
much.

Bundling itself should pose no problem.  Hopefully, an app from the Mac
store would still run after the copy operation.

I think people raising these problems are just mad at iOS.  Unfortunately,
the only ones that have the potential to get hurt is the application maker.
Cannot say I'm thrilled myself, but I do not like the mechanism of
retaliation.  If there is some code signing like defense mechanism of the
mac store which means it won't run post copy, then put in another exemption,
like the class path one,  & force people using this tactic to find other,
less prepared victims.